<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing, except it’s not true.</p>
<p>It makes me sad that this was taken seriously.</p>
<p>haha if in this market there’s demand for liberal arts, it shouldn’t be abolished. people made their own decisions and perspectives.</p>
<p>Likely some disgruntled tier 2 school engineering major coming to spoil the fun because no one will hire them over the tier 1 liberal arts graduate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nope. hard science at my school is in the School of Physical Sciences. useless things are in the School of Liberal Arts. hard sciences and engineering is just pre-psychology here.</p>
<p>This is not as entertaining as I had hoped it would be.</p>
<ul>
<li>Employed English major :P</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying that hard sciences can’t be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you should have been more careful with your negations. </p>
<p>= inapplicable theoretical mathematical principles
= liberal arts</p>
<p>As an aside, I find the use of the word “overly” in the phrase “overly complex formulas” hilarious. Wouldn’t the world be so much simpler if ax^2 + bx + c = 0 ==> x = b - c instead of that dang quadratic formula that nobody uses in real life</p>
<p>This is a ■■■■■ thread. The best way to respond to it is to remain silent, because no words are needed to discredit the absurd OP. However, many of the responses are so poorly-reasoned that they actually lend credence to an argument that would otherwise have been a non-issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then hilarity wouldn’t ensue.</p>
<p>^ This is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m chinese and i cook chinese food. one of the main flavorings in chinese food is alcohol along with vinegar. why? you learn this in organic chemistry.</p>
<p>Fischer esterification: R-OH + RCOOH -> ROOR + H2O. the specific ester of ethyl acetate, synthesized in this reaction where the specific organic groups are CH3CH2 for ethanol and CH3 for acetic acid (vinegar), gives a fruity and sweet odor to the food.</p>
<p>this is a very good example of how the physical sciences are applicable to everyday life. now, how often will you do a freudian psychoanalysis of someone…</p>
<p>now that I think about it, i could go on and on about the chemistry of cooking =) there’s just so much science in cooking alone! thank goodness i majored in chemistry instead of say, Psychology.</p>
<p>I love how people like saying how with engineers can be engineers and still be educated in history, english, liberal arts, etc and then cite some person who does have those skills</p>
<p>…but then they forget how most engineers really are socially awkward machines that just aren’t capable of higher-thinking. I really feel sorry for them…I wish one could simply teach them to open their minds up, but their arrogance and inability to even comprehend such a level of thinking makes it extremely difficult. Most will never know the freedom from existing only in the world of carbon molecules, vectors, integrals, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you just don’t know anything about how to construct a sentence in a logical manner. Social Sciences was the object, “can be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t.” the predicate. You said that “unlike the hard sciences”, that predicate applies to the social sciences. In other words, the predicate doesn’t apply to the hard sciences, i.e. it’s not the case that the hard sciences can be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t. ==> the hard sciences can’t be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a ■■■■■ thread. When I’m participating in a ■■■■■ thread, I only aim to amuse myself. That usually means I pick out an inevitable logical flaw in the argument of someone that’s dumb enough to take the thread seriously. Now I could’ve pointed out that your argument in favor of liberal arts was just a comparison between several different liberal arts disciplines, but that didn’t amuse me as much at the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nietzsche’s theory of political motivations - necessary to perform everyday functions? A common topic of conversation outside of a work place?
Adam Smith’s economic opinions - necessary to perform everyday functions? A common topic of conversation outside of a work place?</p>
<p>That’s a terrible definition for applicable. Clearly nothing anybody learns in college fills the first criterion, otherwise anybody that didn’t go to college would be dead. And putting aside the question of how much anything that is taught in college qualifies as “A common topic of conversation outside of a work place”, you’ve now essentially reduced the idea of applicability (as far knowledge gained in college goes) to anything that makes good (or common, I suppose) conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty much daily!</p>
<p>lol @ thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>agreed, it doesn’t need math. basic? you don’t seem to have taken it. lower division, yes. taken by anyone except bio/chem/chemE? not even allowed at my school. anyhow, you said hard science, and chemistry is a hard science, unlike biology/psychology/whatever ology that doesn’t mean anything in the physical world. hard science =/= math, it just happens to need math to explain some aspects. have you done any statistical sociology research? it is pure math. far more math than chemistry, or even chemical engineering research. now, statistical sociology gets money; psychological sociology doesn’t. but the vast majority of sociology students don’t like the statistical part, they don’t like thinking, and do the psychological crap and turning sociology into a joke degree. ask someone, is chemistry a hard, physical science, then ask the same of sociology.</p>
<p>you do not go to university to learn conversation topics. you go to university to learn a set of skills that expand your knowledge and prepare you for either further research or a job.</p>
<p>Gonna have to point this out: A lot of the people who stick with hard science and pure math do so because they love the subject, not because they want to save the world by finding useful applications.</p>
<p>Oh snap, here’s a comic that explains what I just said much more concisely. [Saturday</a> Morning Breakfast Cereal](<a href=“Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Prayer”>Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Prayer)</p>
<p>And my psychology friends hate it when other people ask to be psychoanalyzed.</p>
<p>“Maybe we wouldn’t be so underpopulated then”</p>
<p>uhm</p>