wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> truth >> Humanities versus Sciences
        
(Message started by: mikedagr8 on Sep 14th, 2007, 4:17pm)
Title: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 14th, 2007, 4:17pm
Several close friends of mine who are all fairly intelligent, were discussing subject choices for our final years of school. A friend and I chose what is known as the "Asian 5" in reference to a particular school (No offence intended, it is just colloquial term, for the subjects). These are English, Math Methods - (middle difficulty), Maths Specialist - (highest difficulty), Physics and Chemistry compromising the "5" as well as I.T.A (information technology applications). On the other hand two of my friends chose all humanities related subjects (English literature, English, History, Health and Humanities, Legal Studies and Business Management etc). Two of my other friends chose a combination of humanities and sciences. We then had a discussion over which would get someone furthest in life and the usefullness of it iin the future. We also got the teachers involved on the topics who turned out to be quite heated in their arguments.

My question is; "Is science more important than humanities? Which will get you further in life? Which will be more important in the future?"
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by Sameer on Sep 14th, 2007, 6:49pm
If you are good at what you do and get the right opportunity at the right time, it doesn't matter!!
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 15th, 2007, 1:09am

on 09/14/07 at 18:49:46, Sameer wrote:
If you are good at what you do and get the right opportunity at the right time, it doesn't matter!!

So becoming a historian is always going to have its use over a GP because... I couldn't find any reasons.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by Sameer on Sep 15th, 2007, 11:56am

on 09/15/07 at 01:09:33, mikedagr8 wrote:
So becoming a historian is always going to have its use over a GP because... I couldn't find any reasons.


What is GP?

Maybe if you are a renowned historian, you can appear on Discovery documentaries explaining the mysterious past, etc.  ;)
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:11pm

on 09/15/07 at 11:56:44, Sameer wrote:
What is GP?

Maybe if you are a renowned historian, you can appear on Discovery documentaries explaining the mysterious past, etc.  ;)

Sorry about that, it's not a common term. A GP is a general practitioner (a doctor), but like a family doctor who works at a clinic.

You may appear on those kinds of documentaries, but will they actually benefit anyone? Sure maybe someone learnt something about the Romans, but will it help them ever?
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:20pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:11:17, mikedagr8 wrote:
You may appear on those kinds of documentaries, but will they actually benefit anyone? Sure maybe someone learnt something about the Romans, but will it help them ever?


Well, where do you think the term "Trojan Horse" for viruses came from? :P
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:27pm
Yes, that's a term but if you know it's a virus, others will describe to you what it is and how it works, then you can make the logical link to the past, but it is not necessary.  ;)
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:30pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:27:56, mikedagr8 wrote:
Yes, that's a term but if you know it's a virus, others will describe to you what it is and how it works, then you can make the logical link to the past, but it is not necessary.  ;)


Or you can infer what it does by knowing the historical significance of a Trojan Horse having watched those documentaries.  ;)
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:31pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:30:12, ima1trkpny wrote:
Or you can infer what it does by knowing the historical significance of a Trojan Horse having watched those documentaries.  ;)

But has it actually benefited you to fix your problem?
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:35pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:31:24, mikedagr8 wrote:
But has it actually benefited you to fix your problem?

I don't have any problems with them currently (that I know of...  ::) ) however, knowing what your problem really is helps quite a lot in most cases... it makes it much easier to figure out how to fix it. If no one ever documented history with all it's conflicts and solutions, you would have to be constantly reinventing the wheel in your daily life when it would be much more efficient to learn from others and then find your own unique lessons to discover the solution to and help others.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:47pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:35:27, ima1trkpny wrote:
you would have to be constantly reinventing the wheel in your daily life when it would be much more efficient to learn from others and then find your own unique lessons to discover the solution to and help others.

Wouldn't reinventing the wheel come under a science? ::)
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 15th, 2007, 5:58pm

on 09/15/07 at 17:47:20, mikedagr8 wrote:
Wouldn't reinventing the wheel come under a science? ::)


Yes, but if someone has already done it do you want to have to waste time figuring it out yourself when you need to move something? Or would you rather use (and improve if necessary) on something that already works because someone took the time to document how the original discoverer did it? Everything ties in together... why do you think you do lab reports when you do experiments? So you have documentation of what was done, etc so future people can try and reproduce your results, compare answers, and improve upon or further your work.  ::)

I personally am more scientifically inclined, however I don't underestimate the importance of good historical record keeping... can save you an awful lot of time learning from others mistakes instead of having to learn them all the hard way yourself. And being good at some of everything makes you a more well rounded interesting person who can see the big picture, instead of only your little corner, because you understand how everything ties together.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 16th, 2007, 1:53am

on 09/15/07 at 17:58:45, ima1trkpny wrote:
Yes, but if someone has already done it do you want to have to waste time figuring it out yourself when you need to move something? Or would you rather use (and improve if necessary) on something that already works because someone took the time to document how the original discoverer did it? Everything ties in together... why do you think you do lab reports when you do experiments? So you have documentation of what was done, etc so future people can try and reproduce your results, compare answers, and improve upon or further your work.  ::)

I personally am more scientifically inclined, however I don't underestimate the importance of good historical record keeping... can save you an awful lot of time learning from others mistakes instead of having to learn them all the hard way yourself. And being good at some of everything makes you a more well rounded interesting person who can see the big picture, instead of only your little corner, because you understand how everything ties together.


Documenting something is fine when it comes under experimental parctices and theories on mathematics etc, like working out. But is it necessary to know who invented the wheel, and what they ate two weeks prior to thinking of the invention? That unnecessary documenting is what I meant by history, does knowing that information benefit anyone?
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by towr on Sep 16th, 2007, 7:24am

on 09/14/07 at 16:17:30, mikedagr8 wrote:
My question is; "Is science more important than humanities?
No, nor vice versa.
Life would be terribly inconvenient without science and technology (which I'll assume you've thrown together). But life would be dreadfully boring without the humanities; without literature, art and philosophy.
Never mind science would be crippled without the humanities, if only because you need a good narrative form to bring your ideas across (rhetoric is very important in scientific prose). And vice versa, the humanities would be crippled without technology; without pen and paper, and ever more convoluted ways to communicate and propagate ideas and stories.

They're two sides of the same coin, without either there isn't a coin!


Quote:
Which will get you further in life?
If you're rubbish at science, studying science won't get you anywhere in life. If you're rubbish at humanities, it won't get you anywhere either.
If you're good at both, the combination will get you further than either.


Quote:
Which will be more important in the future?"
Depends, in a post-apocalyptic world you may find it more useful to know how to till the soil than either science or humanities.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by towr on Sep 16th, 2007, 8:12am

on 09/15/07 at 01:09:33, mikedagr8 wrote:
So becoming a historian is always going to have its use over a GP because... I couldn't find any reasons.
Personally, I'd rather not have medical examinations done by a historian (which, for arguments sake we'll assume has no affinity with medicine); so I'd be very glad to leave them to study history.
Besides which, there is much to learn from history; not least of all about science and how it is actually done (for example you could read up on Kuhn, who brought some historic realism into the philosophy of science).


on 09/15/07 at 17:11:17, mikedagr8 wrote:
You may appear on those kinds of documentaries, but will they actually benefit anyone? Sure maybe someone learnt something about the Romans, but will it help them ever?
Everybody will die, regardless of what they do, so how does any human endeavor, science included, in the end ever help anyone? (Even if science could extend life, the universe will end, rendering us dead and anything we did meaningless).
Learning about the Romans will entertain me for a while, and may help me entertain others; it may help me think of life, the universe and everything, and wonder how 42 factors into this. It's helps make life interesting and worth living, as does science when told/done well.


on 09/15/07 at 17:27:56, mikedagr8 wrote:
Yes, that's a term but if you know it's a virus, others will describe to you what it is and how it works, then you can make the logical link to the past, but it is not necessary.  ;)
It's a lot harder to explain things without good analogies, metaphors and similes, though. Associating a "Trojan horse" (which btw isn't a virus, since it's a program unto itself and not 'parasitic' on another program) with the tale of Troy helps to keep people's interest, as well as explain how it prays on their stupidity to work.
People like a good story, and embedding new information and concepts into stories helps to propagate them.


on 09/16/07 at 01:53:13, mikedagr8 wrote:
Documenting something is fine when it comes under experimental practices and theories on mathematics etc, like working out. But is it necessary to know who invented the wheel, and what they ate two weeks prior to thinking of the invention? That unnecessary documenting is what I meant by history, does knowing that information benefit anyone?
Does it benefit anyone to know the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Oh wait, that's history too. Well then, how does it benefit anyone that the sun will last about 5 billion more years? Or that super massive black holes can (most likely) be found at the center of galaxies?
And redefining history as "unnecessary documenting" is rather unfair. It also encompasses "unnecessary digging up of buried towns, treasures, graves, dinosaurs, etc". But frankly, it's no less a matter of satisfying curiosity than most of science is (and btw, history is very much a science, even an empirical science).
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 16th, 2007, 11:27pm

on 09/16/07 at 08:12:00, towr wrote:
It's a lot harder to explain things without good analogies, metaphors and similes, though. Associating a "Trojan horse" (which btw isn't a virus, since it's a program unto itself and not 'parasitic' on another program)...

*bows head in shame* True, yes, my apologise...
My achilles heel is my complete ineptitude for computer stuff beyond the basic functions I use a lot... so thank you for pointing out my mistake and who knows maybe one of these days I will have an epiphany and computer stuff will just "click" (but I doubt it...  :'( )
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:14am
Well, to be fair I didn't really know what the distinction was up until I looked it up a month or so ago ;D

And for completeness: a worm is a (malicious, reproducing) program that worms its way into your system by itself. So the distinction with a virus is again that it isn't parasitic on other programs. And the distinction with a Trojan is that it doesn't rely on the user to gain access by being caried in
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:18am
Alright I give in over the topic. Since towr is vouching for both sides, I'm gonna stop. I still believe that sciences (and technologies)> history.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:27am

on 09/17/07 at 02:18:05, mikedagr8 wrote:
Alright I give in over the topic. Since towr is vouching for both sides, I'm gonna stop. I still believe that sciences (and technologies)> history.

You can believe sciences > history, thats your personal opinion ofcourse. However, a debate aint worth anything, if its positives arent appreciated. Towr and others have made several promising points above. I hope you do consider that.

-- AI
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:44am

on 09/17/07 at 02:27:41, TenaliRaman wrote:
You can believe sciences > history, thats your personal opinion ofcourse. However, a debate aint worth anything, if its positives arent appreciated. Towr and others have made several promising points above. I hope you do consider that.

-- AI


Of course I considered it, what kind of nice person do you think I am? ::)

P.S. I did appreciate what was said, I am now more open minded, but on this topic, not as much. :)
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by Sameer on Sep 17th, 2007, 9:30am
One thing I might point out is I am an engineer and prefer sciences myself. I didn't test well in literature, histories, etc. (even biology). So from a study point of view I literally didn't like those but I would never undermine the importance of it for the reasons mentioned above. You might be interested to know a lot of inventions were made during the time of turmoil that you study in your history books. Wouldn't it be nice to connect the dots and get the whole picture?
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by Three Hands on Sep 17th, 2007, 11:48am
From a pragmatic point of view, having a degree in a science subject tends to provide more job opportunities than in a humanities, purely because of the technical knowledge which tends to be obtained from a science subject.

However, the skills developed by humanities (as towr has already outlined) are not to be ignored either. Being capable of clearly presenting an argument, ensuring that your points are relevant and not easily refutable, as well as being able to analyse a large amount of literary (rather than numerical) information to gather the relevant points quickly, are both very useful within a lot of day-to-day tasks - for example, reading and sending e-mails efficiently and effectively.

Probably the simplest difference between sciences and humanities is science looks to answer "How?" while humanities look to answer "Why?". Never looking for answers to both, in my opinion, makes you a very dull individual. However, you should also look to play to your strengths and interests, as ultimately it's your life to enjoy, and not anyone else's
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 17th, 2007, 12:55pm

on 09/17/07 at 11:48:37, Three Hands wrote:
However, you should also look to play to your strengths and interests, as ultimately it's your life to enjoy, and not anyone else's

Hear, hear! To decide which subjects are more important is virtually impossible as without one you wouldn't have the other. But as to what will be the most beneficial and enjoyable to you... well that is something only you can decide.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 17th, 2007, 6:09pm
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Newton

Without history, science would be pointless, wouldn't it ? The way I see it, science merely gives proofs of how the universe works, technology is harnessing that knowledge to make our lives more comfortable. Humanities, well, they gave meanings to our lives. History, culture, theology ( to name a few ), aren't those more meaningful to our lives as a whole, as compared to scientific knowledge ?
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by SWF on Sep 22nd, 2007, 10:14am
Look at the people around you with careers. I think a large majority of them are making a living without often using an expertise in science, math, or a humanity that goes beyond the basics of reading and arithmetic. Of course there are exceptions, such as if you are near a university or hospital, but people involved in food service or construction may have a greater importance. Aren't food and shelter basic necessities? People who study a field of expertise often end up getting a job as a result of their training, but end up working on logistics such a planning, scheduling, budgeting, managing employees, and writing reports.

I do see mikedagr8's point about history. Knowing history (or anything else) has some value, but people who study it tend to overstate its importance. If historians start accurately predicting the future then I will be more impressed. Instead they usually find analogies between current events and historical events. There is a big difference.

Similarly, much scientific research probably does not have a lot of practical use. Anyway, are the great the acheivements of science and technology really an improvement to the overall benefit of the mankind, or are they accelerating the demise of the human race?

In both humanities and science there are specialties in high and low demand. In science and technology, there is a greater need for medical doctors and civil engineers than there is for herpetologists. In humanties there is a greater need for lawyers than specialists in Icelandic history. You may get more job offers depending on what specialty you choose, but you can only work one job at a time. Of course there is going to be a trade off in doing what you like and how much money you want to make.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 22nd, 2007, 9:21pm

Quote:
Of course there is going to be a trade off in doing what you like and how much money you want to make.

And if making money makes you happy... :P

Nice points though.


Quote:
Similarly, much scientific research probably does not have a lot of practical use. Anyway, are the great the acheivements of science and technology really an improvement to the overall benefit of the mankind, or are they accelerating the demise of the human race?

Refer to here (reply 10) (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_general;action=display;num=1189509487), to see my thoughts on the topic.

Thanks everyone for their opinions, it has been very helpful.
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by Aurora on Sep 23rd, 2007, 7:31am
Do you mean the reply you wrote on September 12th, becuase there are only 10 replies on that topic? ???
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 23rd, 2007, 7:56am

on 09/22/07 at 21:21:59, mikedagr8 wrote:
Refer to here (reply 12) (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_general;action=display;num=1189509487), to see my thoughts on the topic.

Well, on 9/11 you wrote:


on 09/11/07 at 05:24:02, mikedagr8 wrote:
As for nuclear bombs, those are used for fusion, so they can be nice when used correctly.

Who are you working for, mike??     :-/
Title: Re: Humanities versus Sciences
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 24th, 2007, 12:12am

Quote:
Do you mean the reply you wrote on September 12th, becuase there are only 10 replies on that topic?


I meant the 10th reply. :-[ I saw the date, not the '#' of replies.

But now there is 12, it doesn't really show what I meany. :-[quote]Who are you working for, mike??      [/quote]
I work for myself, a bakery and a bowling alley. But I also do occasional tutoring, but there is not always enough time for my own studies then. :-/

I'm trying to be recruited as a hired assassin actually  :P. I do know four martial arts and have a sharp eye and excellent vision.


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board