Slashdot Mirror
'Why Liberal Arts and the Humanities Are as Important as Engineering' (wadhwa.com)
Engineering professor Vivek Wadha writes: A technological shift is in progress that will change the rules of innovation. A broad range of technologies, such as computing, artificial intelligence, digital medicine, robotics and synthetic biology, are advancing exponentially and converging, making amazing things possible. With the convergence of medicine, artificial intelligence and sensors, we can create digital doctors that monitor our health and help us prevent disease; with the advances in genomics and gene editing, we have the ability to create plants that are drought resistant and that feed the planet; with robots powered by artificial intelligence, we can build digital companions for the elderly. Nanomaterial advances are enabling a new generation of solar and storage technologies that will make energy affordable and available to all.
Creating solutions such as these requires a knowledge of fields such as biology, education, health sciences and human behavior. Tackling today's biggest social and technological challenges requires the ability to think critically about their human context, which is something that humanities graduates happen to be best trained to do. An engineering degree is very valuable, but the sense of empathy that comes from music, arts, literature and psychology provides a big advantage in design. A history major who has studied the Enlightenment or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire gains an insight into the human elements of technology and the importance of its usability. A psychologist is more likely to know how to motivate people and to understand what users want than is an engineer who has only worked in the technology trenches. A musician or artist is king in a world in which you can 3D-print anything that you can imagine.
Creating solutions such as these requires a knowledge of fields such as biology, education, health sciences and human behavior. Tackling today's biggest social and technological challenges requires the ability to think critically about their human context, which is something that humanities graduates happen to be best trained to do. An engineering degree is very valuable, but the sense of empathy that comes from music, arts, literature and psychology provides a big advantage in design. A history major who has studied the Enlightenment or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire gains an insight into the human elements of technology and the importance of its usability. A psychologist is more likely to know how to motivate people and to understand what users want than is an engineer who has only worked in the technology trenches. A musician or artist is king in a world in which you can 3D-print anything that you can imagine.
In before the anti-intellectual comments about "snowflakes" and "gender theory majors" commence.
" yet is just a string of conjectures based on no evidence, " Have you ever read anything you've written here Bill? You're full of yourself on a Trumpian level.
Have you taken a liberal arts/humanities class in the last 10-20 years, do you know someone who teaches one, or are you just parroting the anti-intellectual bullshit of the alt-Right?
"See, this is why liberal arts and the humanities are so important. If you'd studied them, you might have thought to check the motherfucking article before spouting off about how this guy is just some liberal arts loser."
You do realize that where they have taught, what certifications or accreditation they have, or what their ideas are, does not preclude them from saying stupid things. You are helping prove my claim that the entire purpose of "The Humanities" is to generate people exactly like you. To make it so that only certain people can have opinions... the ones that went to these classes and passed them.
"I would think that someone who jumped straight to, "he studied macrame" without even glancing at the article might not want to throw any stones about "critical thinking"."
I would say this same thing about you. do you know for a fact that this poster is not as known as the other? Perhaps they are and do not wish to reveal their real name because of folks like you? You know... the ones that says the only people allowed to have a legitimate opinion must pass your version of ideas.
"Nonetheless, expertise counts for something, as a time-saver if nothing else."
I agree, but this is about humanities, who is really the expert here? I am a human, I am every bit an expert as you or that person holding a degree. In short, who can you technically reason with yourself that he, or you, or I are more "qualified" to human?
"It doesn't matter if that someone is Noam Chomsky or Jordan Peterson."
No, you mean... it does not matter if it is anyone or anyone! If they are human they are qualified experts! Think of the movie K-Pax... every being has the capacity to help other heal. Yes, we also harm because we act stupid, but the action of healing does not start with expertise, it starts with understanding... something I am currently not seeing from the professionals. Even Jordan Peterson has no problem lambasting folks, which is probably why I like him a lot, he is no stupid person, but I have come to almost the exact same conclusions that he has come to and I can assure you that I am no where near as "qualified" as he his on things. How is it that I can arrive at many of the same conclusions that he has about life? By thinking, that is how... and I do not need to do this in an academic setting and the idea that I should to be "qualified" is the problem I want to point out here!
Huh you went for none of the above, instead going for "lie about what I said". Well, that's an angle I guess.
Claim: Social science departments at universities like Yale have explicitly defined themselves as institutions for political change, not institutions concerned with seeking truth.
No, that wasn't your claim I took issue with. We both know that, see your post was here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
My reply was here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The claim I took issue with as you can clearly see was this:
Unfortunately, a lot of the social sciences these days just teaches a view of history in which the Enlightenment, the Roman Empire, and technology are just tools of the male patriarchy to suppress women and Africans.
I know that, and you know that. Your dishonesty is utterly astounding.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh, I'm sorry, with your flurry of insults,
Nice try, but the very first line of the first post of mine was quoting the bit of your post I responded to. If you hit a flurry of insults first, then it's your own text you're taking about.
But we both now know that honesty isn't your strongest suit.
In order to save myself vast amounts of time, I'm gong to stop my responses at the first blatantly dishonest thing in your posts.
SJW n. One who posts facts.