<p>+1 to what Warts said. In this era, we tend to value science more than the humanities. While this was not quite the case, say a few hundred years ago in Western society, we have found that science and mathematics drive the majority of “progress” today.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I think that higher end mathematics and science seems more out of reach the layman, making it seem more impressive than a piece of writing. While Shakespeare may be genius, most people are at least able to read it. However, most people could not explain the true meaning and origins of Einstein’s famous E = mc^2 formula. It’s this phenomenon that makes scientists seem more “intelligent” than those who are brilliant in the humanities.</p>
<p>@noimagination-- well you obviously have your own “utilitarianistic” philisophy similar to that of Thomas Gradgrind from Charles Dickens’ Hard Times. The arguments you are making seem to be based on this “must be relevant or its nothing” argument. I am not saying you’re biased but yea… lol</p>
<p>@InRisingMist-- Your arguments just contradicted, no? Elaborate.</p>
<p>@Whan-- Not neccesarily. Its just that the language of physics (math) is not the same language we use everyday. I am actually able to have a very good understanding of the math and concepts of einstein’s special relativity. it just read and learned the language and i was able to understand the math and concepts of the theory. i’ve also read through the papers…complicated yes, but i figured out its meaning. this is the diagramming of ONE sentence from paradise lost: [Diagramming</a> Sentences](<a href=“http://www.german-latin-english.com/dialit10.htm]Diagramming”>Diagramming Sentences) <—looks like a bunch of nonsense, but once you learn the rules, you can understand it–just like math. math/science is about rules and procedures. im only slightly above average in math be/c i am often disorganized and all over the place–not really a rule follower.</p>
<p>@noimagination-- I never said you did not make sense. Yes I understand what you’re saying but someone with a different philosophy as to whats relevant may disagree with you.
You make sense but not objectively.</p>
<p>I totally agree…
Humanities folks just are freakin’ loopy on the whole (and this coming from a student who has recognition for poetry formally in newspapers/magazines in addition to loving English as a subject).
I get much more “recognition”/praise from my strengths in Science/Math (yeah, I have a weird brain that way).
But, this is not to say I haven’t <em>seen</em> (not met…seen) many extraordinarily intelligent lit majors…they’re all extremely well-spoken on television, at least. But when you get up to the professor-level they’re all relatively the same I suppose.
Not to mention I don’t find myself to be a drooling village idiot, but I do recognize the social bias in my strengths in the humanities. I don’t support said biases fully, however, the trend seems to be relatively clear (whether a direct result of social conditioning or not).
Who knows. Hah [:
And, as a note, I believe the poster is speaking about people on the undergraduate/highschool level. That’s where I’m coming from anyhow. Obviously geniuses are brilliant, creative people in their own rights :rolleyes: Need we defend that point once more?</p>
I simply do not understand how anyone can disagree with what I have stated [in #84]. They definitely may find sensory or emotional appeal in works where I do not (that’s the definition of subjectivity), but they are still evaluating the work within the framework I just established.</p>
<p>Except your conclusion is that a work lacks merit because is has no “utilitarian use.” A work of art is not designed to have “utilitarian use.” Maybe that’s the problem with this whole debate. The value of math/science achievements vs. artistic achievements is not based on the same criteria.</p>
Read it again. If something can appeal to me on a sensory or emotional level [1], I consider it good and respect its creator. That is the purpose of art. However, art can also be judged based on the opinions of the artistic establishment [2]. I argue that this is irrelevant for the reasons in #84.</p>
<p>With regards to high school / undergrad, with the exception of a few brilliant students I would expect someone to be good at both STEM and the humanities. As I explained back in post #44, people with talents in both areas are more likely to appear to specialize in STEM.</p>
<p>@wahkimoocow, you’re right, it is relatively easier to understand once you learn physics, math, etc. However, keep in mind you’re way above average when it comes to the general population. A lot of the general population can’t really speak the math/science language, and thus it seems foreign and very advanced to them, when in actuality it may not be.</p>
<p>Meh, I don’t consider Charles Darwin to on the same level as a lot of other famous scientists and certainly not the Philosopher/Mathematician types.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a large chunk of the population can’t understand something, in what sense is it not advanced?</p>
<p>Darwin was rubbish. He was a biologist and everyone knows Math>Phyics>Chem>Bio.
I am an elitist math nerd. So what?
^Not really. Most 8th graders could read 9th grade writing without too much trouble.</p>