I personally am a student in the humanities (medieval history of the church to be exact), and yes, I'll admit there are flaws to knowing only them: Engineering and science courses provide an insight into the world that cannot be obtained otherwise. They've taught me about genetics, how to build a computer, how batteries work, how to decipher an electrical schematic diagram... I wouldn't give those experiences back for anything. It lets me appreciate the work Phil Plait does on his blog or the efforts of Neil DeGrasse Tyson to educate the people. I wouldn't be able to understand the jokes within SMBC or XKCD without them. I grew up watching Bill Nye and loving every second of it. Hell, I've been following Slashdot for over ten years since I was in elementary school because it continues to fascinate me.
But not as much as medieval history fascinated me. I knew from middle school that my dream was to become a professor in that field: I preferred Steven Runciman and St. Augustine of Hippo over my brother's O'Reilly books. I've been working hard each day learning Latin, ancient Greek, French, German, and Old English to be able to read the texts that are pertinent to my field. Admittedly I don't have to work out the stress in the joists like a structural engineer, or figure out why this code isn't producing the right results, or decide what's the best method to administer medicine. I have to look at the evidence given to me (textual, archaeological, linguistic) and come to my own conclusions about what happened over a millennium ago and why. Can anyone really prove me wrong? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You can back up your opinions, but many times there isn't enough evidence besides giving your impression. Occasionally we have a discovery like Sutton Hoo or Nag Hammadi that give a complete paradigm shift, but that's about it. It's never a slam dunk like in 1919 when Arthur Eddington helped Einstein overturn Newton for good.
But that doesn't mean the humanities and its pursuit are useless.
I'll be honest with you: I hate literature and art history. They were as boring to me as mathematics, and it's a struggle to stay awake in all of them. But I've never thought of any of them as lesser than the other. Mathematics, even those that seem useless at the time, ultimately help in endless fields: When imaginary numbers appeared on the scene, they only solved certain formulas and that was about it. "Imaginary" was coined by Descartes in a derogatory fashion. And look now at the practical applications. Literature provides our society with culture and can be an actual impetus for change: Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" against McCarthy or Dickens' "Bleak House" against the British judiciary system. Can you imagine a society without Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, or Orwell? Whether you like it or not, they've helped define our vocabulary and views about humanity and society. Art history explores human expression, whether it's my favorite period of the baroque, or the symbolism within the Renaissance, or even something as ridiculous as Dadaism. That's the stepping stones that we've built on to create our world today. Even if you haven't studied them, the influence is there.
I can say as a historian and someone who is deeply involved with Christianity, I really wish people studied those more. People's ignorance is overwhelming and frustrating. Politicians screw around my field just as much as they do with science. Recently we mocked Sarah Palin and her misinterpretation of Paul Revere's ride, but for someone like me I spot problems with politicians' words every day. I can't tell you how much I want to punch someone in the face when they say, "The Founding Fathers would [agree and support with whatever I have to say]." And as someone who doesn't specialize in American history, I can say Americans' knowledge about world history is just appalling. If people learned about it more, maybe they'd have more insight about why certain portions of the Middle East hate one another. Or why the Korea
Slashdot Mirror
I personally am a student in the humanities (medieval history of the church to be exact), and yes, I'll admit there are flaws to knowing only them: Engineering and science courses provide an insight into the world that cannot be obtained otherwise. They've taught me about genetics, how to build a computer, how batteries work, how to decipher an electrical schematic diagram... I wouldn't give those experiences back for anything. It lets me appreciate the work Phil Plait does on his blog or the efforts of Neil DeGrasse Tyson to educate the people. I wouldn't be able to understand the jokes within SMBC or XKCD without them. I grew up watching Bill Nye and loving every second of it. Hell, I've been following Slashdot for over ten years since I was in elementary school because it continues to fascinate me.
But not as much as medieval history fascinated me. I knew from middle school that my dream was to become a professor in that field: I preferred Steven Runciman and St. Augustine of Hippo over my brother's O'Reilly books. I've been working hard each day learning Latin, ancient Greek, French, German, and Old English to be able to read the texts that are pertinent to my field. Admittedly I don't have to work out the stress in the joists like a structural engineer, or figure out why this code isn't producing the right results, or decide what's the best method to administer medicine. I have to look at the evidence given to me (textual, archaeological, linguistic) and come to my own conclusions about what happened over a millennium ago and why. Can anyone really prove me wrong? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You can back up your opinions, but many times there isn't enough evidence besides giving your impression. Occasionally we have a discovery like Sutton Hoo or Nag Hammadi that give a complete paradigm shift, but that's about it. It's never a slam dunk like in 1919 when Arthur Eddington helped Einstein overturn Newton for good.
But that doesn't mean the humanities and its pursuit are useless.
I'll be honest with you: I hate literature and art history. They were as boring to me as mathematics, and it's a struggle to stay awake in all of them. But I've never thought of any of them as lesser than the other. Mathematics, even those that seem useless at the time, ultimately help in endless fields: When imaginary numbers appeared on the scene, they only solved certain formulas and that was about it. "Imaginary" was coined by Descartes in a derogatory fashion. And look now at the practical applications. Literature provides our society with culture and can be an actual impetus for change: Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" against McCarthy or Dickens' "Bleak House" against the British judiciary system. Can you imagine a society without Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, or Orwell? Whether you like it or not, they've helped define our vocabulary and views about humanity and society. Art history explores human expression, whether it's my favorite period of the baroque, or the symbolism within the Renaissance, or even something as ridiculous as Dadaism. That's the stepping stones that we've built on to create our world today. Even if you haven't studied them, the influence is there.
I can say as a historian and someone who is deeply involved with Christianity, I really wish people studied those more. People's ignorance is overwhelming and frustrating. Politicians screw around my field just as much as they do with science. Recently we mocked Sarah Palin and her misinterpretation of Paul Revere's ride, but for someone like me I spot problems with politicians' words every day. I can't tell you how much I want to punch someone in the face when they say, "The Founding Fathers would [agree and support with whatever I have to say]." And as someone who doesn't specialize in American history, I can say Americans' knowledge about world history is just appalling. If people learned about it more, maybe they'd have more insight about why certain portions of the Middle East hate one another. Or why the Korea