<p>@md5hash— please dont get me started -_-
you know there was recently a whole study done (it was a mini documentary–forgot the name but im going to try to find it–done by the bbc i believe) in which psychologists attempted to figure out what intelligence actually was…there were about 7 people (an artist, a physicist, a dramatist, etc etc) who were given tests.
blah blah blah and then in the end–to everyone’s surprise, the most “intelligent” of the group (based on that wide variety of testing types) was the dramatist–the creative dramatist :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hahaha</p>
<p>You cannot honestly think that a study based on 7 people can be extrapolated to the who human population. It is very possible that the dramatist was indeed more intelligent than the others. That doesnt mean that all of them are.</p>
<p>no wonder your not mathematically or scientifically minded</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That might be one of the most poorly defended arguments I’ve ever seen…</p>
<p>Yes, but s/he didn’t cite it as empirical evidence. It’s only an anecdote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The argument was not one that could be supported by an anecdote.</p>
<p>Obviously. (And really, can any argument ever be supported by an anecdote alone?)</p>
<p>This is a discussion, no? I see no reason to be hostile to someone who contributed an anecdote.</p>
<p>@md5hash-- aww come on. lol. you clearly lack analytical thinking since you failed to see that i was just offering the documentary as a suggestion to watch maybe. I was not using it to back up any claim o_O–please never again act as a representative of math/science minds on any forum (okay now lets stop personal attacks–its not classy. you are the only answerer who has resorted to personal attacks. whats your deal? arrogance, in my opinion, is the ultimate vice.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In certain types of argumentation, anecdotes can serve as part of one’s support. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree; yet it is necessary to reveal fallacious attempts at persuasion.</p>
<p>Of course there are rules in the humanities. dfsgrk;jgn isn’t great literature primarily because it isn’t literature at all. There are specific reasons why it isn’t literature. Philosophers can’t just say things and have it be Philosophy - it actually has to mean something. And if you look at math, Newton’s use of Calculus wasn’t just a matter of plugging numbers into some formula and following a set of predefined rules to see what you get.</p>
<p>The thing about “great” art is that it must exist. Art is only really judged based on individual tastes relative to other works of art. Given that some art is going to be created, a subset of that art has to show the greatest ingenuity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course</p>
<p>Assertion: Some dogs have tails.
Anecdotal Support: I just saw a dog that had a tail.</p>
<p>InRisingMist-- thank you–its a very compelling list.</p>
<p>Math and Science are more significant in today’s technology and society. You don’t see someone being successful off of knowing something that happened along time ago. People aren’t making and publishing books every 5 days.</p>
<p>@LastYearsMan-- Thank you for being very level-headed here. </p>
<p>This is only a discussion.
That anecdote is just one of many that can either prove or disprove my point…so don’t attack it. Its just there–its not meant to magically influence your thinking :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, my tenth grade math teacher published an awful lot of books. I think he wrote like 3 during winter break, including one about how to publish books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not see the connection between what yields success and what is significant in a society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not a reasonable request. There is nothing wrong with civil debate.</p>
<p>Yea this is not about whether or not its useful in society.</p>
<p>@MattNC</p>
<p>Two problems with this.</p>
<p>1) You assume that a historian is simply a walking database of information. The study of history is much more than recall.</p>
<p>2) When we talk about great achievements in literature, we’re not talking about the books that end up on the front racks at your Barnes and Noble. We’re talking about Joyce, Proust, Kafka, etc.</p>
<p>Every major field has a significant role to play in society; indeed, there is often interdependence.</p>
<p>@silverturtle</p>
<p>Exactly. That’s why it bothers me when people write off the humanities as irrelevant. While they are not necessarily my strength, I have no trouble recognizing the importance of scientific/mathematical achievements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not yet had the pleasure of debating such a person. In what way do they support their argument?</p>