Science vs. Humanities / Egghead vs. Boneheads

[SOteric]

This odd little stereotype keeps coming up as an issue in various places.

I know a great many people who feel that an education in the field of Maths and Sciences is somehow superior and/or more rigourous than education in the Arts and Humanities. -Or who feel that subjects in the arts and humanities are the domain of intellectual lightweights.

I'm going to point out that my personal observation has been that most who hold these opinions are themselves in the fields of Maths and Sciences.

So I'm putting the question out to the finest resources available.

DU'ers: What do you think?

No degree is necessary to have an opinion.

[PVnRT]

1. The humanities courses I took

were many, many times easier than the math and science courses that I took - but, then again, I took ones that I really wanted to take.

[mopinko]

6. i am an artist, and

all the artists i know are anti-bush, anti-war dems. all progressive and smart, seeing the whole picture. most of the musicians i know are the same way.
but, there is no doubt that there is a real prejudice out there. here in chicago, there is a math and science magnet high school in each of the 5 regions and NO public arts high. there are some magnet programs, but you also have to have high test scores and good grades to get in. so what about the kids who are "right brain" creative kids? flush 'em. they are a hugh percnetage of our 20% dropout rate. "why spend money training kids for things you don't get paid for." wonder why the sheeples are everywhere? your tax dollars at work.

[SOteric]

9. I suspect there's some aspect of that in a good deal of students.

If you're working on an English Lit. degree and Maths are not your best subject, you'll fulfill any Maths requirements by taking the coursework which will be easiest for your skill level. Similarly, if you're working on a degree in Chemistry and your linguistic/vocabulary skills are weak, you're unlikely to chose coursework in Middle-English & Middle-French Literature.

[BigMcLargehuge]

2. I've always been flummoxed by that attitude

I usually ask, when confronted with it, which famous Greeks they remember. There are about the same number of mathemeticians as their are poets, playwrites, and philosophers.

[SOteric]

10. It's just as easy to ask them about examples

of living, contemporary mathemeticians, scientists, poets, playwrites and philosophers.

Most of my students can name only one or two combined.

[Sting]

3. I think

Sciences are better than the Arts. However, I have no artistic talent. I do very well in the sciences and I do love the science classes a lot more. I really don't like philosophy (i'm in it now.) Too many stupid questions are asked (no offense to those who are philosophists. I like to see things from the scienctific perspective.)
Sting

[SOteric]

11. Well, better is somewhat subjective. I'm really just asking

if you think the folks in one field of study are smarter/less smart than the other.

[Sting]

12. nah...

i think the folks in one area of study are just as smart as the peeps in another area of study.
Sting

[politicat]

4. I'm at the intersection....

I've got a degree in Evolutionary Psychology (which has a lot of anthropology plus psych) and one in History. I'm also an amateur biologist and math nut.

The science people think I'm a humanities egghead because anthro/psych/sociology are "soft" and "fuzzy"; solid humanities people like women's studies and english and history think I'm science because of the experiments and testing and rigorous publication requirements.

So being neither a mouse nor a bird but a bat, I see both sides and kind of think it's this way - it's like being shirts or skins in touch football.

Both are good educations but need to be rounded by exposure to the other side. Of course, the more specific we get (i.e. the further we get in grad school) the more we lose that perspective.

There's a reason I'm not in academics anymore.

Politicat

[Endangered Specie]

5. actually

Many in the Math and Science (sometimes called S&M) look down on the social sciences (psychology, sociology etc...)

Its sort of natural animosity, friendly rivalry. Almost every dept, has something to say about the other.

Nothing quite like an Architect and a Civil Engineer in terms of animosity and feuding.

[Endangered Specie]

7. Where I go to college:

Math/Science/Engineering people have to take 7 courses from Hum/Soc sci, some have to be 200+ level. Hum/Soc sci people have to take 2-4 math/sci courses, at any level.

[Leados]

8. I particularly think that

Humanities are "easier" to get a good grade in since all you have to do is figure out what the prof. wants to hear and put it down, whereas in science you have to figure out the right answer yourself.

I'm going to graduate with a degree in Chemistry, and I like humanities better sometimes, since its a bit more open to interpretation than science/math is.

I think ultimately that humanties trump science in the fact that while math/science can kill or heal people, the real power lies with the ability to change people's perceptions and thoughts (which is what humanties tend to be concerned with.) Its just that those with humanities degrees tend not do to this, at least where I'm from.

[DivinBreuvage]

13. Judging from the "math/hard science" fanatics I've known...

and I'm not talking now about people who live a rounded life as fully-formed human beings, but about those who sneer at "soft" sciences like sociology and dismiss as "irrelevant" humanities such as art, music, poetry, and the like...

they are, without exception, socially and emotionally inept, and thoroughly "deficient", as Melville said, "in the region of the heart". Things that can be fixed and quantified comfort them; things that are fluid, uncertain, or open to interpretation disconcert and frighten them.

I'm talking about the type who says things like "I don't have a girlfriend because I don't have time for that", but who spend all their evenings and weekends alone watching Star Trek TNG or playing on the computer.

Similar behavior can be observed in some "atheists"... people who are not secure in their belief, but who constantly feel the need to be on the offensive, as if desperately seeking to reassure themselves that they are right.

Françoise

[SOteric]

14. That's very intriguing, FF

and you bring up some points I hadn't considered.

I believe you may be correct that the better 'rounded' academically likely process better those things which are fluid and interpretive.

[TXlib]

32. Dig at atheists?

Similar behavior can be observed in some "atheists"... people who are not secure in their belief, but who constantly feel the need to be on the offensive, as if desperately seeking to reassure themselves that they are right.

I could very easily turn this around and make the same claim that some theists (and I'll do them the dignity of not putting the name in quotes) constantly feel the need to be on the offensive, as if desperately seeking to reassure themselves that they are right.

[SOteric]

33. I didn't read it that way,

He said "some" and that's quite a peacemaker, really. Even when you turn it around and write 'theists,' it doesn't seem very much like a dig to me. :shrug:

You could both agree to eliminate the specific and say that with regard to religion/atheism, 'some people...' if you feel it's really upsetting.

[TXlib]

36. I guess the reason I read it as a dig

was because (a) he put it in quotes, which looks belittling or condescending, and (b) singled out atheists, despite both sides being fully capable of intolerance.

[SOteric]

45. That's the very reason I don't see it as a dig.

He used the words 'some "atheists."' I would read that as a group who call themselves, or think of themselves as atheists, but who may not classically fit that description for reasons which may or may not follow the phrase.

You, yourself, recognise the need for subsets of descriptor in the matter of non-belief.

[TXlib]

50. Ah, I see your point now...

Yes, I suppose it can be read that way, too. Makes more sense that way, in the context of FF's other comments.

Kinda like when one of those 3-D pictures snaps into focus...

[DivinBreuvage]

96. it was most assuredly NOT a dig at ALL atheists...

...only at the ones who feel the need to be constantly forcing their beliefs down other people's throats, because that is a sign that their belief is not sincere but is being used as a cloak or a crutch for something that is broken within.

Txlib is absolutely right that the argument could very easily be turned around and used against "believers". I'll be the first to grant that far, far too many people use their so-called "faith" as a lie and a sham, a crutch for their inner failings or a club to beat other people over the head with, rather than as an essential guide to being a better human being and bringing oneself closer to God. But I didn't mention religious hypocrisy in my original post for two reasons: 1) I think a good many folks on DU are well aware of its existence already, so I could assume it as common knowledge here; and 2) because I was talking about some people on the rational/scientific side, not on the emotional/interpretive one. Although not an atheist myself, I genuinely respect that belief when it is sincerely held.

That being said, I'd like to thank SOteric for defending me in such a thoughtful and capable way and Txlib for arguing in such a level-headed and mature fashion. You could just as easily have scorched me with a flame and I appreciate your gentlemanly restraint. :)

One last minor note, I'm not a "he"... students of French will recognize the feminine "e" at the end of my name (the male version would have been François).

Françoise

[TXlib]

99. Oops

Desole, excuse moi.

I just noticed the 'e' on the end of you name.

The kind of atheists you describe are what I refer to as anti-theists: the ones who feel the urge to prove they're right, and ridicule theists.

I went though an anti-theistic phase on my path to atheism, and ocasionally still struggle with it, especially after going a few rounds with conservative christians.

[DivinBreuvage]

105. "Anti-theists" is a good name

And some of their counterparts at the opposite end of the spectrum do seem to have a remarkable talent for pushing the buttons of sensible folk.

Françoise

[SadEagle]

15. I think part of the reason for the perception...

...Is that humanities people are not expected to be good at math and hard sciences, and in fact many aren't (largely through disuse), while everyone expects good mathematics/science/engineering students to be at least sort of OK at humanities, and in most cases to do well. Perhaps it's just that people who are not gifted mathematically are in much harder position than people that are not gifted in dealing with humanities...

[JVS]

16. Are you from England?

It's Math damnit.
My opinion is that a scholar must be able to do good work in all fields. The prospective English major who enters college vowing never to take a Math class is weak charlatan who should be driven from the academy by force. Similarly a Math major who dismisses Philosophy as a bunch of crap except for logic is a philistine who is also in the wrong place. There are excellent students in all areas, but the liberal arts are often treated as a refuge by students who are just looking for a place to hide and wait for a degree. Generally Science majors are expected to be able to adapt to liberal arts more than Liberal arts majors are expected to be able to adapt to sciences.

Students should be able to be competent in both spheres.

Exception should be made, however, for a small number of science majors. They are what the Germans would call Fachidioten, subject idiots, people literally so obsessed with their own course of study that they cannot function in any other field. I know one of these. He's a 19 year old from Moldova who has taken 5 (usually graduate) math courses each semester since he got here three years ago. He placed 16th in the Putnam exam last year. He will graduate with a Masters from the department because he won't complete the general education requirements.

[SOteric]

17. No, I'm not from England.

"Maths" is the way that I've learned it, and it isn't incorrect usage.

The fact that it winds you up makes me feel a bit sorry for you. I don't tend to respond well to incivil demands that I change something merely to suit the whims of a relative stranger.

[JVS]

19. Just joshing you. Sorry to cause offense

I've never heard Maths from someone who wasn't from a commonwealth country.

[TXlib]

39. I think he was just trying to be funny.

He just forgot the smiley:

It's math, dammit! :)

[SOteric]

46. Whatever meanings were

implied and inferred in this transaction were settled yesterday, between JVS and myself shortly after the posts were made.

[JVS]

48. Yes.

Using Maths is just fine.

[fujiyama]

18. I would say

that at most colleges and universities mathematics, sciences, and engineering are on the whole much more rigerous and difficult for most people.

I say this because in the quantitative fields, especially at the higher level, many standards are much more uniform and there are various councils and academic/ professional standards that are upheld.

For example engineering colleges usually are accredited by ABET, which sets certain minimum standards. Chemistry programs, in many cases, are accreddited by the ACS. Similar with physics (hey if you ask a physics or quantitative chemistry person, they wouldn't even include bio as a hard science).

Also, in the sciences, we are dealing with mostly objective data, and easier defined goals. This is rarely the case in the social sciences and the humanities, where things are much more open to interpretation. Objective answers are usually easier memorized in social science classes.

In quantitative fields, there requires a lot of problem solving, and repitition. There are many different procedures and often abstract concepts (but then again philosophy does as well).

Now, these are obviously broad generalizations, and it is amazing how many engineering/ science majors are pretty clueless about simple historical, political, and cultural facts and concepts. Being an engineering major, I've seen it.

[supernova]

20. There is a perception that math/sci people are smarter, more geeky

I don't know why really.

It's interesting that you should bring up this dichotomy, SOteric. My mother and I used to have great arguments about "math people" v "language people".

She was a math/science person. I was a language person. And yes, we squared off, usually over the low esteem in which I held algebra. She taught algebra. :P I could never get more than a C- out of it no matter how hard I studied.

But the need for balance is absolutely correct. As I've gotten older, I've realized we did overlap quite a bit. She was a whiz at Spanish, and adored Shakespeare and music.

Eventhough I love language, words and writing, I adore physics-- especially astronomy. If I were in college now, I'd still get the lit degree but drop the education minor and minor in physics. And I'm a music fanatic too.

I think the problem in my case was using algebra as a gate-way math to other things. You had to take algebra to get to other stuff. I got turned off and it took years to overcome it.

By the same token the sci/math geeks have a point, we often don't teach history very well. It's as if everything happens in a vacuum. The American Revolution. The Reformation. The Rennaisance. We don't convey the idea these things feed off each other.

[SOteric]

23. Ahhh, "Geekier than thou..."

I'm much in agreement about the teaching of history. So often I'm disappointed to learn that my students have been taught the same flimsy chapters of history over and over ad nauseum. I don't wonder that their tiny little minds shut down at some point. It would have to be monotonous. Dismal, too, is the lack of emphasis on any history other than the U.S. and some modern aspects of the global community related to contemporary wars.

[supernova]

26. Agree totally

In H.S. we didn't get past WWI ! You would think history stopped after that! And Africa or Asia who?

Only my love of history/current events has kept me up to date. I can shudder at someone who isn't interested in continuing with their learning.

[ulysses]

65. math education

I agree about the algebra gateway. I think math ed suffers from the same "disembodied head" syndrome that history ed does - "And now here's algebra/World War II, which has little, if any, connection to what you've studied up to this point." For most of us, studying algebra has nothing to do later in life with finding slope and everything to do with the development of the capability for abstract thought. It's basic concepts should be taught at a much earlier age than they usually are, and not as "algebra" (cue the fear and trembling) but as an extension of the math that's already being discovered, which is what it is.

[SOteric]

74. I actually enjoyed algebra

but Father Murphy taught us to use whatever means possible to relate it to our own experience and have fun with it.

I have always had a soft spot for a good "Whodunnit" and would envision myself as the Sherlock(ette) Holmes charged with finding Mdme. 'x' purely by sleuthing out her relationship to the suspicious-looking Mr. 'y.'

:shrug: Hey, it worked for me.

[ulysses]

77. that's what's needed, though.

I hated algebra in high school. Loathed it. Anything you want to learn needs to be personal in some way - you probably know this - and algebra was "the other" for me from the time I was in elementary school. I didn't really see the beauty in it until I taught it in the late 90s.

[mitchum]

21. I was a Humanities major and was surrounded by unread idiots...

(even at the graduate level) I honestly think that many people do become Humanities (particularly Literature) majors merely because they are "bad at math" It is much easier to coast through the Humanities.

[JVS]

22. I kind of got that feeling too

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. My graduate degree is in linguistics

but there are two types of linguists. The theoretical linguists tend to come from philosophy, math, and computer science, while the historical linguists come from language and literature programs.

When I took introductory linguistic theory, I found it both boring and pointless, not to mention difficult, but the philosophy, math, and computer science types lapped it up. However, when the professor decided to spend the last two weeks of the term on applications of linguistic theory to the history of language, the tables were suddenly turned.

The students who had been such hot shots were suddenly bewildered. They had trouble with the very concept of language changing, and they couldn't do the exercises, which were easy for us language and literature types.

When I took science courses in college, I found the content interesting and could understand the principles, but I wasn't interested in actually DOING all the theory and lab work, which seemed like drudgery. Now that I'm a translator, I've often had to translate materials that touch upon the sciences, and the articles seem excruciatingly boring to me, even though I love reading Scientific American and Discovery.

One of my fellow grad students, a rare individual who was equally at home in both camps, eventually got a job teaching technical writing for engineers. He said that one of his hardest tasks was to convince the engineers that people in the humanities weren't stupid just because they couldn't understand engineering jargon.

One thing I found as a language teacher was that science and math students had excellent study habits, but they didn't necessarily have the imagination and hamminess that is necessary for being an excellent language student.

[pmbryant]

25. I think the bad feelings go both ways

Yes, a large number of people in the "technical" fields look down on those in more subjective fields, but the same can be said in reverse. Some of the posts in this thread are good illustrations of that.

;-)

Speaking as a member of the science/engineering field, I can also say that these people also look down on each other: "My" specialty is more difficult, more worthwhile, more interesting, and requires more smarts than "yours".

I think it's just human nature for people to disparage those who are different in order to elevate themselves.

--Peter

[ProfessorGAC]

27. I'll Go With That!

Look i have graduate degrees in three fields, but all tangentially related. But, i'm a musician who favors the organic and fluid styles of music.

So, i am a math/science and artistic guy, and i hate everyone. So you must be right.
The Professor

[SOteric]

35. I'm not sure I see your point

with regard to the comments in this thread being a 'good example' of both fields disparaging the other. I've reread each of the contributions in the thread and I see a few places where Arts & Humanities are generalised as being easy and unchallenging. But I see no places where Maths & Sciences are generalised to disparagment. In the few cases were a negative comment was made about some folks in Maths/Sciences, it was made with qualifiers that removed the generalisation and applied it only to specific subgroups of those fields.

Can you help me see where you're interpretting that assessment from?

[pmbryant]

40. universal phenomenon

Even if it is just of a subset of people, disparagement is still disparagement. The animosity is clearly there.

This attitude of superiority is not special to any particular category of people, but seems to be a universal phenomenon of human nature.

--Peter

[SOteric]

44. Then I disagree.

I don't feel the Maths and Sciences were generally disparaged, only some small, ill-defined subset of the field was disparaged.

On the other hand, Arts & Humanities is taking quite a hit, and not with small, ill-defined subsets, but generalised to the entire field.

[pmbryant]

57. The criticisms are different ...

But they are still there. They perhaps take more careful study to see if you do not consider yourself a member of the group being criticized. That is understandable.

Yet the superior attitudes from some of the "arts & humanities" people definitely exist, and can be seen in a few of the posts on this thread: math/science people are represented as "geeks", "socially and emotionally inept", not creative, little imagination, don't get many dates, etc. I don't think that just because these attitudes are qualified in some ways erases their presence.

Do you disagree about my contention that it is human nature for people of all types to feel superior to those they consider different? I thought that would be a fairly non-controversial statement, but perhaps I am wrong about that.

:shrug:

--Peter

EDIT: Slight wording change in first paragraph.

EDIT AGAIN: I see now I have several more examples to add to my list above.

[SOteric]

69. I agree

that there is some tendency in human nature to condescend toward those who are different. I don't mean to dispute that with you.

I do see a dramatic difference in our perception of 'disparagement,' however. To assume that a 'disparagement is a disparagement' is for me black and white thinking that negates the very distinct line I see in the tone of this thread.

As an analogy, there is a dramatic difference in saying "All Republican leaders of this country are greedy and evil and have abandoned the people to their own ends;" and saying "Some Democratic leaders of this country are greedy and evil and have abandoned the people to their own ends."

I disparage all Republican leadership in that statement, but I don't disparage all the Democratic leadership.

[pmbryant]

75. Ok

I think our disagreement is over the degree of the qualifications. I saw them as minor. A vague qualification is almost as bad as no qualification at all, in my view.

I think your analogy would be more precise it it were a Republican saying "Some Democratic leaders are greedy and evil." I think most would quite reasonably interpret this as a disparaging comment about Democrats. Not all Democrats perhaps, but that doesn't change the tone of the remark.

--Peter

[KCDem]

42. yup, it's mainly just humanities-bashing here at DU.

:shrug: Who'da thunk?

People have different talents and skills. Some follow their talent, some their interest, and others follow the path that'll make them the most $ (probably not most people here, lol.) I followed my interest: foreign languages. Although, I arguably should have gone into the sciences instead. I always tested very well in the maths and sciences. Oh well, I had a braniac older sister, for whom our high school had to create 2 new math courses, as she completed BC Calc as a sophomore. Not wanting to follow in her footsteps ("Oh, you're ANITA'S younger sister... she was an excellent student"), I took a different path.

It does bother me when scientists think they're better than the rest of us. But then, we get more dates. :evilgrin:

[TXlib]

88. Oh, what do YOU know, you Russian Lit person, you?!

[SOteric]

92. Tsk.

That woman is never gonna warm your blini again.

[TXlib]

98. Well,

I make some killer blini, so i don't need a blini-warmer...

[HereSince1628]

28. Just a degradation product of competition

like name calling between liberals and conservatives.

The conflict between post-modernism and empiricism is over methods, and both sides claim(ed) the other is dumb if they don't "see" the value of the other. The competition is an old one. It became hot again during the last decade or so, as scientists became defensive about what was percieved as assaults from post-modernism and "pseudo-science." But I am not sure that this conflict is the most pressing problem of humanists or scientists.

Building academic curricula around Science and Humanities is a recognistion of the heritage of the Enlightenment. Currently, both Science and Humanities academic programs are being cut, especially on small resource challenged campuses, in order to move curricula toward "professinal studies" which can be interpreted as programs of study that are directed at specific jobs.

[FlaGranny]

29. I'm a language person.

I have no degrees in anything. I married straight out of high school and started working and raising a family. My IQ is 8 points higher now than it was in HS - in the gifted range. I excell in language and I do very well with spatial relationships. Math has been a complete mystery to me since about 6th grade, although I do manage to figure out most math problems eventually. I raised one son gifted in both math AND language, and another son gifted in math, but not so much in language. They are both smarter than I am. So, from personal experience, I would say that if you are gifted in both fields, you are "super" superior. Otherwise, the rest of us have either right brains or left brains and I don't really think one can be said to be superior to the other, we just have a different kind of intelligence.

[populistmom]

30. I know people who feel the same way

I think my husband is like like. He's in a very technical area of medicine that has a base in chemistry and physics and he's extremely left-brained, whereas I'm a definate intuitive type of thinker. I have math issues for sure (it's very hardfor me when I can't conceptualize an exact 'thing' to relate to), but somehow I remember back in high school when I took my SATs, my math score was still well above average.
I had an art history course once that was as hard as any science class I've taken, so I don't judge at all. I'm now going back to school to get another degree in nursing and it tends to be heavy on the biological sciences obviously, but also includes many social sciences. For me, the social sciences are a bit easier, but not much. Physical sciences sciences such as physics is a bit rough for me though.
One thing that is true however, is pay. Someone could have hands on technical training in a math, science or technical area and frequently make more money than someone who may have a PhD in say, anthropology. However, we live in a country that doesn't put a lot of value in things like history and art or music (except commercialize stuff).

[AquariDem]

31. Yeah, what about us Verbal Geeks?

All through school, I've struggled with math but have been very proficient in the language arts. Yet when I go online and search for the word "geek," it's only applied to those who excel in math and science. (And what am I doing looking up "geek" in a search engine, anyway? Do I have a life?) :)

[TXlib]

34. Observation about physicists.

Many physicists I know are also artists of some sort: I've known many who paint, sculpt, play/write music, write poetry, etc.

The more artistic they are, the more likey they are theoretical physicists.

I've also noticed that theoretical physicists are more likely to respect and appreciate the humanities and their experimental counterparts.

This, I feel, is because theoretical physics requires much intuition and creative thinking, and at the cutting edge of physics, is also very fluid and uncertain.

Some of the most arrogant people I've known (with regards to repsecting the humanities) have been physicists; but also, some of the most open-minded.

I think, in general, math/science people feel superior to arts/humanities people because their field is analytical, and results are generally much less open to interpretation than in the arts; you're either right or wrong.

Unfortunately, because of the appalling lack of scientific literacy in the population, a humanities person will often trump a scientist (no matter how articulate) in a scientific debate, because the humanities person will be more likely to make anecdotal and emotional arguments that, while potentially misleading, will produce a stronger gut response among the sheeple.

[supernova]

37. Heh, this makes sense

I've also noticed that theoretical physicists are more likely to respect and appreciate the humanities and their experimental counterparts.

This, I feel, is because theoretical physics requires much intuition and creative thinking, and at the cutting edge of physics, is also very fluid and uncertain

IOW, you are developing several different answers, scenarios to the same question, or many questions. I think Humanties folks are good at seeing possibilities and not being overly concerned with what is *exactly* right, in favor of trying to describe something several different ways.

This might also be true in reverse, i.e. theoretic sciences like physics might be the most accessible to us language mavens. Witness my flirtation with astronomy. And it seems the more "out there" the theory, the easier time I have understanding it. And I don't think I'm unusual. Am I?

[TXlib]

41. Theoretical physics and language mavens

I think the more "out there" theories of physics today (e.g. - string theory) feel like philosophy, rather than physics, when stripped of the math.

That might be the reason for the appeal.

[GinaMaria]

38. nursing degree

required science classes and humanities. Both are needed. One tempered the other. Science and it's application can be an art as Art can be a science.

[TXlib]

43. Some more thoughts

The hard sciences have more depth, and the humanities have more breadth. By that, I mean that anybody could pick up a graduate history or art or literature text and be able to comprehend it, with the help of the internet and a dictionary. But this understanding will be shallower than that of somebody with the breadth of similar knowledge that comes from lifelong pursuit of that field. In contrast, a graduate text on quantum field theory will be utterly incomprehensible to anybody who has not spent the requisite 5-6 years studying the math and physics required to get to that point.

A physics grad student could take a graduate-level philosophy class and get some use out of it. S/he may have to struggle to learn all the terms and jargon, and will be at a disadvantage, lacking the breadth of knowledge the philosophy grads have, but the physics grad would, at least, be functional in the class. On the flip side, a philosophy grad in a graduate-level physics class would be utterly lost. The philosophy grad doesn't have the math/physics background to understand the class. It's not entirely unlike trying to take a french lit class, taught in french, when you don't speak a word of that language.

For this reason, the science geeks might conclude their field is harder than the humanities.

[SOteric]

47. That's a very tempting set of statements

coming from a man who's tried twice in this thread to help a professor language arts interpret the meaning of someone else's posts.

[supernova]

51. SNERK

TXLib, you were doing so well there for a minute. You've overplayed your hand I'm afraid.

edit: Never mind. I misread your post. Seeing things. Sorry. :crazy:

[TXlib]

55. Am I missing something?

Did I somehow offend you?

[SOteric]

59. No, I'm not offended.

I'll PM you in a few minutes.

[ulysses]

49. having been

fairly well drenched in aspects of both the sciences and the humanities in college (and having gotten a pretty useless degree in employability terms as a side benefit), I'd say that the answer to which is "superior" is a heartfelt "yes". The should, and often do, complement each other, and both are better off for it.

Anyone ever read anything by Andrea Barrett? Really good fiction writer who bases her stories in science history - neat stuff.

[supernova]

54. I'll take your recommendation

I've never heard of her, but I'll certainly look for her books. :thumbsup:

[ulysses]

60. very highly recommended

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks&field-keywords=andrea%20barrett&search-type=ss&bq=1/002-2189368-9604002

I've read Ship Fever and Voyage of the Narwhal and I have Servants of the Map on deck. Excellent fall/winter reading, btw.

[SOteric]

58. I'd have to agree

with you and a small majority of posters who feel that the brightest, most well-rounded intellects are those that share some degree in proficiency at both fields of study (and I'd add a third, but maybe that's just me).

I know a few really talented theoretical physicists who are looking to philosophers to help them better understand some elements of physics. Certainly art, music, and literature have benefitted over the years from the contributions of science.

[ulysses]

61. what's your third?

I think there's a great deal to be said for generalists in an age of specialization.

Great Friday afternoon thread. :)

[SOteric]

62. Atheletics,

physical education and training. Not so much for the sake of competition, (whose role in modern society ought to be severely rethought), but for the dimension it adds to one's life.

[TXlib]

63. The greek idea of a sound mind in a sound body

It's too often neglected today.

[ulysses]

70. yup

(he said, sipping a well-deserved jack-n-coke while sitting on his ass before a flickering screen...;-) )

[GOPisEvil]

71. Well, this Greek agrees.

I've got the mind (I like to think so anyway), and I'm working on the body. Going to push some iron later this afternoon. :thumbsup:

[ulysses]

67. completely agreed

My alma mater, when I was there, had no indoor exercise facility (although soccer was, and I think still is, big). This lead to a series of tshirts emblazoned with the slogan "Great Books, No Gym". They've built one since.

[SOteric]

87. No doubt your influence.

Swarms of young ladies were demanding the opportunity to see you shirtless and in gym shorts.

:loveya:

[ulysses]

91. that must have been it, yes

Fantasy-memories of lustful encounters with what is best described as a bag of bones must have done it. :)

[Nikia]

52. I like the balanced approach more

One of the reasons that I did not go into engineering is because all the engineering curriculum I saw allowed few non engineering/science/math courses to be taken. I never understood all those people who hated taking general education requirements, especially those in programs that allowed one to choose amongst several courses to meet the requirements. I was a biology major at a liberal arts college, which in addition to gen eds required that a certain number of courses be taken outside of one's division. A couple of fellow majors complained about that. Instead, I took only the minimum number of courses in my major along with the recommended addtional science courses that I'd need if I'd go to graduate school. I enjoyed takeing humanities and social science courses. Perhaps, I should have majored in one of those areas, which I got better grades in and were easier to me. I think that many humanities people are weak in math and science and should be required to take more of these courses at most colleges that are aiming for the well rounded student. Myself, I was stronger in math when I was younger. In my teens, I started reading more literature which better developed my language skills. I have always been intersted in most school subjects. When I took the SATs, my math and verbal scores were within ten points of each of other. Of course, I'd be advocating balance. Both fields of knowledge are valuable and if you value your knowledge/intelligence, you will study from both fields and develop both sets of skills.

[geniph]

53. While I don't feel that way about the liberal arts,

I admit I do feel that way about the soft "sciences." (Full disclosure - I was a biochem major.) It annoys me to have things like statistics or psychology or sociology classed as any kind of sciences.

We all have our little quirks.

[JVS]

56. Why statistics?

Statistics is a subfield of Math.

[geniph]

94. "Figures Lie and Liars Figure"

because statistics interprets the data...straight collection of statistics is quantitative, but as soon as you get into reading the tea leaves of what it all means, that's fuzzy stuff to me.

[Nikia]

79. I found that a little annoying about anthropology

I was considering double majoring with anthropolgy after really enjoying my intro social and cultural anthropology class my freshamn year. My sophomore year, I took classes in the more scientific areas of anthropology (biological anthropology and archaeology) and didn't enjoy them. The papers we read, tried to be scientific, but was really based on a lot of speculation. Being used to scientifc papers that did have substantial scientific evidence to back up everything they said, I found these anthropology papers to be rather weak. I did not take anthropology classes after my sophomore year because of this even though I could have gotten a minor in it if I had taken anthropology classes instead of the Russian literature classes I took my senior year.

[geniph]

95. The best anthropologists

use field observation and standard scientific technique to back up as much as they can. But a lot of anthropology suffers from a sort of anthropological uncertainty principle. Have you changed the data by observing it? It's impossible not to when studying other cultures unless you have some sort of duck blind for humans to sit in and make your observations.

Physical anthropology has some dotted lines, but for the most part, is hard biology in my view.

[Leftist78]

64. I'm a Poli-Sci guy

IMHO, the science/math people are a little too black and white in their vision of how the world works. As a result, many of them are conservative. I realize that I'm stereotyping here, but I'm just going by my own experience. The social science/humanities people tend to be more open minded, and typically more liberal.

Incidentally. there are many Poli-Sci people who take a scientific approach to the issues, and I've found many of them to be conservative as well. Personally, I've always preferred the more philosophical side of Poli-Sci. To me, that's where the real questions are asked.

I think most math/science people see most humanities/social science people as intellectually inferior just because we don't spend the majority of our time running over some pointless equation about the nature of this or that. I understand the equations are not pointless, and that we owe most of our technological advancement to the science/math people. I think that's the problem. We in the social sciences give credit to the science/math people for their accomplishments, but rarely do we get the same in return.

I guess the truth is, they build the world, and we color it.

[GOPisEvil]

66. Hmmm...I have a poli sci degree too, but I have a B.S. not a B.A.

I'm pretty liberal, though. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule? ;-)

[pmbryant]

68. Dangerous to make ideological extrapolations

I can take my personal experience, which is that virtually every scientist I've ever known is quite liberal and would fit in well on this discussion board, and come to quite the opposite conclusion.

And all of us build and color the world together. It is a joint project, and I wish we wouldn't box ourselves into these artificial groups.

--Peter

EDIT: spelling error

[SOteric]

72. I'd have to agree, again.

I know a great many Mathematicians, Physicists and Scientist in many fields. All but 5 are liberal, progressive or in some way left-leaning centrists.

[Leftist78]

78. I suppose at best

I'd say that the math related fields are split. Some fields lean more in this direction or that. For example, virtually every engineer I know, regardless of what type, is conservative. I'll agree it's a fairly subjective thing. That's why I prefaced it with the IMHO.

It's possible that this varies by region also. I live in the upstate of SC. This area is a Republican stronghold, and most people here are quite conservative. Most liberals I know personally in this area, have a background in some humanities/social science field, and admittedly that could have some effect on my perception of political persuasion and how it relates to a person's field.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. A mathematician once told me

"We're all either freaks or nerds."

I have found that to be true over the years. I find the freakish mathematicians to be some of the most fun and interesting people I've ever met.

[TXlib]

82. Hmmmm...

IMHO, the science/math people are a little too black and white in their vision of how the world works. As a result, many of them are conservative.

I think your statement better fits engineers than scientists. Most of the physics grads I knew were democrats (with a few extreme exceptions). Granted, they tended to be less liberal than the humanities folks, but they were still usually left of center.

The engineers, however, tended to be republicans. So did the computer science types, but to a lesser degree. Engineers and CS types definitely tend toward binary thinking. Scientists, however, are trained to deal in nuances.

[Leftist78]

83. agreed *nm*

[ChemEng]

107. What a crock of crap

"Engineers and CS types definitely tend toward binary thinking. Scientists, however, are trained to deal in nuances."

As someone with a degree in chemical engineering, I can assure you that we deal with more nuances than you can shake a stick at. Engineers are some of the most creative people around.

What I find funny is how easily you stereotype people. What if you substitute "blacks and hispanics" for "engineers and CS types", and "whites" for "scientists." Doesn't read so well, does it?

[TXlib]

73. One final observation

The charge most often made here seems to have been, "Those arrogant math/science geeks think they're better than us."

I certainly know a fair number of such arrogant science types.

However, when I was a grad student, I also knew a fair number of humanities geeks (definitely a minority, compared to all the humanities people) who were rather insecure around math/science geeks. It was like dancing on eggshells, trying to avoid saying anything that would set them off, because they ASSUMED I was arrogant, knowing nothing else about me than that I studied physics, and were looking for confirmation of their assumption.

[SOteric]

76. I'm not really seeing anywhere that that charge was made.

Can you help me out, here?

[TXlib]

85. OK, I phrased poorly

The charge may not have been made here, but it's one that I've heard often in the past. And the word 'charge' is, perhaps, too strong; 'sentiment' would be better.

Perhaps a little history about me might help:

In grad school, I knew many people in the French department. There were inter-departmental relationships, and many parties thrown by physics grads included many french lit grads, and vice versa.

After a few bottles of wine, there were a few people who tended to mix it up a bit. There was one particularly abrasive physicist who would set off the french contingent, and 2-3 of the french contingent who seemed to want to prove that, deep down, all us physicists looked down on all non-physicists. On top of that, they (the 2-3 individuals, not all of them) were a bit resentful of the stipend difference (we made 3-5 times as much as they did), etc.

I guess I developed an allergic reaction to that attitude, and became overly sensitised to it.

[LoneStarLiberal]

80. Political Science

We see an interesting juxtaposition of this question in my field. While my particular department takes a very quantitative approach to the field (using statistics and econometrics and mathematical modeling), we usually have new graduate students entering the department with almost no quant background.

Why?

Because many people entering say "I never thought I'd have to do stats in political science!"

[GOPisEvil]

81. Really?

I purposely took stats and computer science classes to get my Poli Sci degree. That's why I have a B.S., not a B.A.

I was going to do research of some sort, but completely screwed up the whole graduate school thing. :shrug:

[Endangered Specie]

84. Ive noticed

That many people who cant make it math/sci areas drop down to soc sci/humanity fields, However, people who fail in soc sci/humanity fields rarely drop down into math/sci, they usually just drop out, sort of like a totem pole. And this effect takes place with in each sphere too.

When you consider the group of people who are failing in a major, they drop one way, not another, something like this:

Math->Physical Sci->Engineer->Life Science->History->Soc Sci->Humanities->education->Arts->flunk out. Some people make more that 1 step, some go all the way. Notice a trend in how much math is required in each field.
(Im at the Engineering level)

[SOteric]

86. Well, First,

You've gotten your data about spirit poles (Totems) completely backward. The lowest image on the pole is the most revered ancestor with the highest level of clout. Spirit poles are built upward. The guy at the top is the newbie.

And second, I dispute the interpretive outcome of your anecdotal data. I know a great many students who've shifted from a mediocre grade in some field of the Arts to an exceptional showing in some field of Maths or Science. Two 'C-average' students in Fine Arts so enjoyed their coursework in mixing media from raw material that they transferred to organic chemistry and performed above their previous averages in studies.

I have known no students to 'flunk out' in the pattern you describe, but would be inclined to see such a pattern as evidence of pathologically poor study habits (these people don't seem to be able to pass any courses at all) before I would interpret some intellectual superiority inherent in their pursuits.

[Nikia]

93. I don't know if math students are really that superior

One math major on my track team liked math because she did not have to memorize a bunch of facts or write papers. Had she started as a major in a field lower down on the totem pole, she may have switched to math. She did well in her math courses but got below average grades in the required humantities type course. I also knew a few other math students that switched from one of the sciences who did not do well in memorization or lab work.

[fujiyama]

108. I would discpute

the order of that.

I definetely wouldn't put engineering after both mathematics and physical sciences, because engineering utilizes knowledge of both of them.

I would however put physics, and especially theoretical physics at the top. These people are usually simply bright in a very unusual way and they often have an appreciation for the arts and social sciences (atleast that's the case with those I've met). It is also extremely quantitative and abstract.

The approach toward engineering is different because the same concepts that are taught in a physics course are done so with a more applicable approach. The courses are also more specific. My guess is that most physics majors could do engineering, but I'm not sure if the opposite is true in as many cases.

Mathematics is a difficult subject. I doubt most would dispute that. That's because it requires a LOT of practice. That's why they do so well in mathematics in Asian countries. They practice -- a lot, and at a very young age. It takes a ton of repitition of algebra problems to get good at it. Same with calculus, and then differential equations. It takes a lot of time, because knowing the concepts isn't as easy as just reading it, as can be done for many other classes. It must be practiced repeatedly.

Ultimately it comes to matter of market demand. The market demands people with quantitative skills. Especially at a time like this, it's even more difficult getting a job with a liberal arts degree (assuming this is from a lesser known school) than with an engineering degree. It is somewhat unfortunate that society may not place enough emphasis on knowledge of the arts and humanities, but we live in a very consumeristic society, where we want to buy things constantly. Math and science are largely responsible for the material comforts we take for granted.

That said, we all have different aspirations, goals and strengths. Humanities, the arts, are all part of the human intellect. Same with the social sciences. I myself view history as extremely important and view the lack of knowledge among college students shameful and unfortunate.

[ChemEng]

100. Poly Sci is not science........

Just because you use statistics doesn't make it a science. Business majors use stats as well, but they don't try to sex up their major by calling it Business Science! And while I'm on a rant, there is no such thing as a "software engineer!" When I was in college, we called them programmers, but they certainly weren't engineers.

Let the flames begin......

[GOPisEvil]

102. Thanks for the English lesson.

:eyes:

Would you like to come to my house and change my diploma for me?

[ChemEng]

104. Any time

I'm not knocking the poli sci degree, but on the other hand, as an engineer, I don't want to see my degree and profession diminished by people who really aren't qualified to call themselves an engineer.

[buddhamama]

89. they're both hard

it depends on the person, on the mind, where you tend to lean.
best to have a balance, a bit of both.
take Carl Sagan as an example, a 'scientist' and the Man could write. But, not all scientists can write well and for the general public.

i balance the fields by being iffy in both.

[onebigbadwulf]

90. From a humble perspective of a

future neurosurgeon...

a brain surgeon is just an artist's mechanic.

and an artist is just a scientist's clown.


On very basic levels the relationship is circular not greater than or less than

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. The 25th anniversary edition of Science Times

in the NY Times had an interesting quote from a young scientist. His comment was that science and the arts were both important, because the arts were the science of how to live your life.

I would also like to comment on something one of the above posters said. It's true that the traditional academic subjects in both the sciences and humanities are being crowded out by vocational courses that seem to prepare people for specific corporate jobs and little else. I've seen college catalogues that offer majors like "corporate health and fitness" and "personnel management" and "financial counseling" and "fashion merchandising." These are the types of jobs that taught through apprenticeship in Europe at at much less expense for all involved.

[JanMichael]

101. BS? Bull Shit?

BA? Bad Ass:-)

[Zero Division]

106. Want an analogy that's biased toward the humanities, and unfair...

toward the hard sciences/math in a funny kind of way:

The hard sciences/math are to the soft sciences/humanities as brain-teaser-puzzle-solving is to figuring out the solution to poverty. :evilgrin: Well, okay so the hard science are quite a bit more important than brain teasers. :P

I must admit I'm biased as an anthropology enthusiast, although I do have an inner geek who's interested in hard science topics.