<p>But does someone with a BA in some humanities subject really have a unique skill? Or are they just a little more cultured than the person who has learned a science?</p>
<p>@silverturtle-- luckky you be/c i began this thread as a result of a large portion of math/science-oriented people in my school criticizing and berating the humanities-oriented people.
their most repeated argument: âanybody can readâ -_- <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>but yes, as LastYearsMan said, you are right, there is a definite interdependence between the subject areas</p>
<p>A few thoughts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I donât feel comfortable saying that someone is âgoodâ at the humanities. âGoodâ writing, art, etc. is subjective. Look at post #6: wahkimoocow can only support his/her/its claim to skill at the humanities by citing âwhat teachers sayâ.</p></li>
<li><p>In general, I would say that multitalented people (who are respected most of all) are more likely to focus on math/science.
A. Because most areas of math and science are at least somewhat linear in their progression, it is very difficult to become a good chemist while only studying a small amount of chemistry. The same is not true of the humanities - an excellent essay can be written without a great deal of training or prior accomplishment.
B. Some mastery of writing and oral communication is all but essential in any field. In order to be a good mathematician, one must be able to communicate ideas with clarity.
C. Because of the unclear standards for what constitutes âgoodâ mastery of the humanities, one usually must resort to merely assessing competence. It is not terribly difficult to acquire minimal competence in most areas of the humanities.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^^Does a person with a BS in science have some unique skill?</p>
<p>The answer in both cases: No. A bachelorâs is a foundational degree. But if they have a PhD, then yes. They have to develop a unique way of making sense of cultural observations, however that comes through, just as scientists have to make sense of purely physical observations.</p>
<p>That said, Iâm way biased toward the sciences. Biology ftw!</p>
<p>A large portion of philosophy deals with logic, which has a highly mathematical structure. Music is also significantly mathematical. I know many doctors and engineers who are also amazing musicians. To somehow narrowly pigeonhole the analytical mind is to show that you donât know many highly analytical people. And what is more creative than science? But science wonât accept anecdote as âproofâ. I think that there is more intellectual discipline required to excel in math and science. And those same people tend to apply that discipline across areas far more encompassing than math or science.</p>
<p>@silverturtle</p>
<p>They usually equate work in the humanities with the drivel they call entertainment. They see no difference between Harry Potter and something by Nabokov or Bellow.</p>
<p>Sorry, hereâs what I meant to write in a full post:</p>
<p>^^^Does a person with a BS in science have some unique skill?</p>
<p>The answer in both cases: No. A bachelorâs is a foundational degree. But if they have a PhD, then yes. They have to develop a unique way of making sense of cultural observations, however that comes through, just as scientists have to make sense of purely physical observations.</p>
<p>That said, Iâm way biased toward the sciences. Biology ftw!</p>
<p>And hereâs my addendum:
</p>
<p>Is there a difference in quality, objectively, or do they just resonate with different kinds of people (the educated vs. the relatively-uneducated-because-theyâre-still-in-grade-school)? How can you say that either is really better?</p>
<p>Yes, there is a difference in objective quality.</p>
<p>
There was a âhowâ in that question. We can trade âyesâ and ânoâ all dayâŠ</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I wasnât clear. How many people studying the humanities could work their way through lower division math? How many people studying science can work their way through a series of class on Ancient Rome? Ironically, I would say the latter case is the one where technical knowledge is more likely to be a problem. If you havenât learned proper formatting for papers, youâre going to struggle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is writing with a pencil better than looking at a pencil and acknowledging its existence?</p>
<p>@noimagination-- yeaâŠplease dont use myself as an example, lol</p>
<p>what I love about the humanities (writing, history, etc) is that it is rare to find a true master. yes many people are âcompetentâ in the subject, but there are few âmastersâ in the humanities than there in science/math (in humble opinion).
I must admit, I am extremely biased (maybe :P). I appreciate a person who is able to bend and alter language in any way they want in order to achieve anything they want. In the right hands, the power of written language is absolutely amazing (look through history, books, speeches, etc etc have led to wars, peace, etc). Not everyone has that skillâŠits not common AT ALL. The same with historyâremembering facts and then not just reciting them but then making connectionsâreal connections requires higher level skills that i havent really seen from a math student. </p>
<p>so, i have concluded that this debate is not about who is more intelligentâŠi think weâre all intelligent. we just have different types.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that is a crowd-pleaser. If only we didnât have g to contend with⊠:)</p>
<p>Here is the opening paragraph of the last Harry Potter book:</p>
<p>âThe two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane. For a second they stood quite still, wands directed at each otherâs chests; then, recognizing each other, they stowed their wands beneath their cloaks and started walking briskly in the same direction.â</p>
<p>And here is the opening of Nabokovâs Lolita:</p>
<p>âLolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.â</p>
<p>Even in the realm of artistry, some things are better than others.</p>
<p>
How do you know a âtrue masterâ when you see one?</p>
<p>@LastYearsMan: I despise Harry Potter, but I fail to see what exactly makes the latter piece so wonderful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was just about to say something along that line. Einstein is frequently acknowledged as a genius in the field of science in the same way Proust is acknowledged in the field of literature. What makes Proustâs accomplishments of lesser value?</p>
<p>What inherent implications does the inability to objectively discriminate among works have?</p>
<p>@noimagination-- like i said, this is coming from my opinion.
ever read milton, proust, shakespeare? (i mean milton was genius) When you pick up a book or read an essay, you (general form of you in my hypothetical mind) just know when youâre reading the work of a master. its hard to explain. there are many books where i can sit and critique and realize that âhey this author doesnt seem to have unyielding control of language.â a master in âliteratureâ (or whatever you want to call it) does.
yes it is a very subjective topic to some, but i really dont see it as one.
i mean i dont like most of Shakespeareâs works, yet i cannot deny his ability to skillfully manipulate language.</p>
<p>@silverturtle</p>
<p>Our time here on earth is finite. I will only be able to read X number of books in my lifetime. Being able to discriminate between choices based on quality is important.</p>
<p>^Well, thatâs just personal preference. I would choose Rilkeâs Duino Elegies over a billion-page-long work like Proustâs In Search of Lost Time any day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, by modern standards (well, just my standards), that sounds kind of trite and just cheesy. Maybe itâs just because in the decades since it was published, those lines have been overquoted and poorly mimicked. Still, I donât really get what makes those lines great.</p>
<p>And speaking of objective standards, I donât think a Yanomamo tribesman from Venezuela would really consider this especially great either. (Donât you dare say theyâre uncultured or primitive, or every anthropologist in the world will be after you.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This would take forever to explain, and there are people who can do it better. If weâre talking in a more general sense, you might go for the postmodernists, like Derrida and Baudrillard in particular, but there are plenty of non-postmodernists who would probably feel the same way.</p>
<p>^^But that wasnât his question.</p>