<p>Anything a philosopher says that is right is trivial. Anything a philosopher says that is nontrivial is wrong.</p>
<p>-Carl Friedrich Gauss</p>
<p>'nuff said</p>
<p>So I guess Bertrand Russell was just completely off the mark, eh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. Like that teacup thing. Who would ever think there was a teacup floating around some planet somewhere? Bertrand Russell was obviously an idiot.</p>
<p>Itâs way harder to BS math and science than humanities (usually). I can say from personal experience and testimony from many, that writing a paper based off nearly nothing is very doable. At least 5 people in my English class this year wrote their 13-15 page term papers the day before it was due. If you were told to solve a problem of similar expected time input, you would lose a tremendous amount of credit due to factual errors. Analysis is extremely hard to disprove. Therefore, at a high school/undergrad level, people who consistently preform well at math and science are seen as uniformly genuine. Humanities people may also be brilliant, but many of their feats can be replicated with ease and/or luck (at a school level).</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence: <a href=âhttp://xkcd.com/451/[/url]â>http://xkcd.com/451/</a></p>
<p>@InRisingMist âExactly. People have misconceptions. Theyâve heard the names Darwin, Einstein, Da Vinci, and, correctly or not, ignore people with just as much, if not more, intelligence from scientists like Pascal, Descartes, Archimedes, and Robert Hooke to humanists like Aquinas, Avicenna, Van Eyck, and Alexander Pushkinâ
EXACTLY! this has been my point. there is a HUGE misconception.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will concede this point. At the high school level, it very easy for most students to BS their way through humanities work.</p>
<p>Does this fact diminish the magnitude of accomplishments in the humanities? No.</p>
<p>But it tells us a lot about high school.</p>
<p>I can speak as one of the âamazing writers not too good at mathâ people. It is just a little bit irritatingâŠIt is true though, people who are slanted towards math tend to be better at writing than people who are slanted to writing / Humanities are at math. From my life, that seems to hold true. </p>
<p>Both are important. Math and science can tell you by what methods you can live and how you can improve your life, meaning your comfort. Both of these disciplines, however, have one glaring flaw that is also paradoxically their crowning glory- namely, their objectiveness. Most sciences, and especially math, are objective. They have no moral value in and of themselves. That is both their failure and their success. The humanities, on the other hand, hold tremendous moral values. While math can tell you how to build a nuclear bomb, the Humanities tell you how, when, why, and where you actually can use it, if at all. The Humanities tell you why to live. </p>
<p>Anyway, thatâs my two cents. Take it or leave it.</p>
<p>
This agrees with my belief and basically explains the high school attitudes discussed by the OP.
I do not concur. The social sciences are extremely relevant when considering social interactions, but there is a very big difference.</p>
<p>A personâs sense of societal norms is primarily formed by those with whom they associate.</p>
<p>My perspective is that humanities and math/science are intertwined much more than people think. For example, the creativity of humanities can lead to unique ways of solving problems in math/science, while the logic of math/science can influence philosophy (existentialism for example).</p>
<p>Hereâs my view on this issue, albeit really simplistic (and itâs already been covered):</p>
<p>The sciences and the arts are interdependent. One of these cannot stand all on its own without the other. Also, it is incorrect to assume that the humanities are any less intellectually stimulating than the pure sciences, particularly at the post-high school level.</p>
<p>This is coming from a person whose ECâs and passions are mostly centered around the humanities, but who also greatly appreciates scientific achievement and discovery (Iâm a subscriber to National Geographic), whoâs decent at math, and who loves her current physics class. :D</p>
<p>I read the New Yorker and write poetry.</p>
<p>Of course I am socially superior to everyone. Especially those science frks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think itâs easier to argue that the sciences are ideological than math. The sciences are based in the scientific method, math in Zermelo-Frankel set theory. Both are metaphysical and arguably subjective, but I think that itâs much easier to argue that the scientific method is ideological than that Zermelo-Frankel set theory is. But I donât really think either is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And OP is in high school right? Not a literary luminary?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Occasionally creative works can be an inspiration in science, but I donât think itâs an important driving force. And obviously logic (which is part of philosophy) is <em>the</em> driving force in math.</p>
<p>Science is a lot less objective than people here think. Statistics often play an important role in supporting evidence, and itâs pretty easy to just change the significance required to affect the conclusion.</p>
<p>^Ooh, thatâs true. I never even thought of that - although honestly, most scientists will use superlow significance levels just to be safe.</p>
<p>Iâm still surprised no one has jumped on Nabokovâs passion for lepidoptery, as far as name-dropping people who were accomplished in both the sciences and the humanities goes.</p>
<p>Oh well. That bait failed.</p>
<p>@upennster-- âItâs way harder to BS math and science than humanities (usually). I can say from personal experience and testimony from many, that writing a paper based off nearly nothing is very doable. At least 5 people in my English class this year wrote their 13-15 page term papers the day before it was due.â</p>
<p>OMG, i cant believe i didnt see this statement. i definitely disagree.
if that english paper had to be done in miltonic verse or any other advance style of writing, weâll see how many are able to get it done the day before its due. and if they ******** it and actually passâoff with that teacherâs head.
i have a teacher who is easily able to detect nonsense in writingâif there is no thought and/or substance put into the exact wording and/or positioning of a sentence, it usually shows. </p>
<p>math on the other hand, for me, takes no great mind-bending skills. to write forces a person to temporarily leave their own reality behind and adopt a new one.</p>
<p>I think the problem is that there are more people who are good at the humanities than their are true math/science geniuses. Thereâs a short list of people who have come up with important advancements in science, while literary âgeniusâ is so subjective that everyone has their own (probably very long) list. </p>
<p>Math and science can be extremely abstract. Thatâs what makes it difficult for me â sometimes it doesnât match up with whatâs intuitive or what I see in everyday life. In contrast, literature is whatever you want it to be, so itâs intuitive by definition. Iâve never read anything that I didnât understand.
I have so much respect for people who are really great writers, but I see it as a talent like being a good photographer or being a good dancer â part of it is natural talent, but if you practice hard enough, you can do it. Math/science genius is not something that can be taught. I guess thatâs why people value it more.</p>
<p>(PS if you donât think math takes mind-bending skills or the ability to temporarily adopt a new reality, you clearly have not done enough math. And if thatâs what you like about literature, you should probably go further in math, you might be pleasantly surprised!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In modulo 3, -1 = 2</p>
<p>Do you agree with me or am I just making **** up?</p>
<p>^roflmaoâŠ</p>
<p>^^Ah, modular arithmetic, <3 <3</p>