"Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia."
My younger brother (24) and I (33) were having a few drinks the other night and discussing his decision to return to college after quitting in the first semester a few years prior. He drunkenly stated, "Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia."
I asked him to elaborate on his assertion. He couldn't provide valid reasoning without denying the antecedent of his initial proposal, unable to support his argument without recourse to non-sequiturs or circular reasoning. I explained how every academic discipline has the potential for further research and studies, so it advances our knowledge in each academic field.
People frequently assume others are pseudointellectuals or esoteric fools when they contest any established academic premise with unique or impractical concepts or approaches. Maintaining reservations and skepticism is natural, albeit most presuppositions rely on different biases.
They aren't branded fools when they discover what the original theory lacked or required revision. For instance, Kurt Gödel hypothesized that Einstein's field equations had the potential for a time loop since the expressions in the equations have closed timelike curves (CTS) rather than open ones. The theory also offers further specific issues regarding how or if the laws of physics can effectively eradicate them or if we can materialize the radical conditional factors, so Gödel's proposal can enhance our understanding of the many possibilities of the cosmos.
Every academic field requires the humanities and social sciences, which is why philosophy is considered the "mother of academia." After all, where would we be if we never stopped asking why, or worse, what if we had never asked why in the first place?
But what the hell do I know?
If this post is in the wrong place, please let me know where I can post it. Let us all respond with mutual respect and tolerance.
Thanks! :)
I asked him to elaborate on his assertion. He couldn't provide valid reasoning without denying the antecedent of his initial proposal, unable to support his argument without recourse to non-sequiturs or circular reasoning. I explained how every academic discipline has the potential for further research and studies, so it advances our knowledge in each academic field.
People frequently assume others are pseudointellectuals or esoteric fools when they contest any established academic premise with unique or impractical concepts or approaches. Maintaining reservations and skepticism is natural, albeit most presuppositions rely on different biases.
They aren't branded fools when they discover what the original theory lacked or required revision. For instance, Kurt Gödel hypothesized that Einstein's field equations had the potential for a time loop since the expressions in the equations have closed timelike curves (CTS) rather than open ones. The theory also offers further specific issues regarding how or if the laws of physics can effectively eradicate them or if we can materialize the radical conditional factors, so Gödel's proposal can enhance our understanding of the many possibilities of the cosmos.
Every academic field requires the humanities and social sciences, which is why philosophy is considered the "mother of academia." After all, where would we be if we never stopped asking why, or worse, what if we had never asked why in the first place?
But what the hell do I know?
If this post is in the wrong place, please let me know where I can post it. Let us all respond with mutual respect and tolerance.
Thanks! :)
Comments (61)
I wonder if you are asking a range of questions that can take us in many directions; there's epistemology, values, the role of education, unexamined metaphysical positions...
Is philosophy considered the mother of academia? I think this will be news to many people. This kind of debate is generally about the values and presuppositions held by individuals or select communities. Some of these are held with more rigor and justification than others.
It is perfectly possible to have a rich and rewarding life without participating in the humanities or social sciences so... But it is true that all beliefs held by people rest on assumptions - on epistemology and metaphysics - often unexamined and poorly understood. But does this really matter? I generally hold that humans tell each other stories to account for what they call reality. Some of those stories are better for certain purposes than others. I'm not convinced we can arrive at truth or reality and question what those terms mean.
Quoting Christopher
Consider this. The humanities were a product of Enlightenment philosophy the belief that humanity could be understood in a rational and naturalistic light.
But the Enlightenment engendered its own Romantic reaction. Rationality and naturalism were rejected as fundamental.
So what happens as academia and philosophy come to incorporate that same romantic metaphysics within their own social universes?
One might well wonder the value of studying courses taught in that anti-Enlightenment spirit.
Thus it is not about rejecting the humanities and social sciences in toto. It is about picking wisely what you choose to study.
By the way, that phrase has echoed across English speaking universities since the 1980's and has led to many departments being defunded or closing down on the basis of a neo-liberal perspective that universities should just train people for jobs, not merely educate.
So, why are you quoting drunks as useful sources, even if he's your brother?
I have no regrets studying literature and social sciences. Academia is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
And there lies a tale to be told :wink:
Whatever you put into a sewer, what you get out is sewage, Is that really the analogy you were looking for?
Yes, that is the point. Quoting apokrisis
Your post kind of reinforces my point that we advance from old theories especially while they do offer chances for other developments. The foundation for further progress in other fields has been laid by antiquated ideas that we don't often think about. For instance, Freud was ostracized by his peers because of his seduction theory. After studying cocaine, he believed he had discovered the antidote for all ailments. As a result, he put forth his psychosexual development theory and received praise for it. The key premise is that every theory, every idea, and every concept is dynamic and capable of generating recent insights in fields such as biology, physics, medicine, etc. Even though his beliefs have been disproven or are no longer considered valid by academics, he nonetheless established some sort of precedence. Many theories may not be useful now, but once we understand the mechanisms of the semiology between all academic fields, we can better understand the blueprints of the future.
Not sure what that means, but where to from here? All human enterprises are constantly changing and building on old models, from sport to the car, medicine to painting. Where does this place you in relation to humanities? Are you saying that the humanities are outmoded or in need of reinvention? Or both? And who has the capability to tell what is useful and what is not? I don't. I read what interests me, not what is valuable according to an external value system. What subjects are we prepared to fund at universities? That's a separate matter of what cultures value and who's in power.
From the science point of view, Freud was a crackpot. The interesting part of the story is why his theories resonated with the cultural mood of his times. Or more accurately, the generation that followed.
The same has been said of Science before now. Then someone comes along and shakes it all up. I think it is a fair comment that the social sciences and/or humanities are overdue some form of paradigm shift or general shake up.
I believe Husserl was onto something regarding how psychology has shifted more towards being a science (in the physical sense) and away from the psyche sense of psychology.
Another problem here is that these areas may very well be changing right now we just cannot see it due to proximity. Maybe in a few decades well look back and state that was the time of resurgence and change in those fields. In the here and now it looks stagnant and that is probably because were reforming/rediscovering/rethinking long held views and tearing them apart as best we can?
I like the sewer analogy, nice!
The humanities & social sciences are a work in progress to my reckoning and more important than that is comparing them to other "more respected" disciplines like science, math is, I think, comparing apples to oranges.
My usual response is to challenge the person to a fight, miss a couple of half-hearted punches, fall over, declare undying friendship, weep copiously, throw up and then pass out. It's not about the humanities. It's all about the drink.
The answer to the question isn't always "Yes, of course he should finish college." It depends on what he wants to accomplish, and whether a college degree will further the plan. It might not. Then there is the cost/benefit question.
What is your brother's goal?
Credit goes to mathematician Tom Lehrer of Harvard who turned 94 this year. He wrote satirical songs in the 1960s. The quote in question is from a survival hymn about nuclear war -- "We Will All Go Together When We go". Part of the prologue to the song:
Lehrer echoes GIGO! You really can't blame computers for anything for the simple reason that it does exactly what you tell it to do!
I never heard this one, but from CS there is the equivalent and more or less standard that's been around forever: Garbage
I agree. Formal education is not required to achieve professional or personal objectives. He is taking classes in information security. One may assume that the rapid expansion of technology will increase the need for jobs in this sector.
But would there be less need as technology progresses exponentially, rendering many jobs in the tech field obsolete? Developers, for instance, might be replaced by the complex task automation and other tools they use, such as platform engineering. If AI could leverage platform engineering or other technologies instead of developers, wouldn't it be more productive?
He's a minimalist and doesn't mind pursuing a career in a field provided that he can maintain basic life necessities. I suppose his true objective is financial stability.
What's your drink of preference? I'm buying.
Although they still grow from a tree. Why not compare?
Well, nothing really does. "The two enemies of human happiness are pain and boredom."---Arthur Schopenhauer
Your post explains this very well. It's insightful to me, if not anyone else.
Maybe the reasons that we choose to study history---so that we can adopt and omit what we perceive is relevant in any given field.
Only since the 80s'?
Quoting Tom Storm
What interests you?
Exactly. And not a crackpot, but more of a cokepot if you will. Jokes aside. Yes, other psychologists and psychiatrists who founded "Neo-Freudians" and other psychodynamic theories found the relevance and errors in his theories. Even CG Jung broke away from Freud and formed his own theories and psychotherapy. Yes, they vary from culture to culture, but the research on neuropsychiatric development is quite consistent across all cultures.
My brother's comment was obviously futile. Is that to suggest, however, that all inebriated ideas are baseless? Or any other substance that alters cognition, for that matter?
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.
I don't know what the consequences of more complex technology will be on the tech sector. Some work can be de-skilled, certainly. Creativity, on the other hand, isn't a strong-point of AI. I've seen a lot of technological change in the last 50 years and I don't see the end-point. (That doesn't mean that techno-development won't stall-out at some point.)
It would be very difficult to pick a field with a guaranteed future. What seems to be a good plan is to be as flexible as possible, both in one's work and in one's consumption habits. One hopes that flexibility will be a voluntary option, and not forced.
So, good luck and best wishes.
Inebriated people, me among them, have ideas and they might be quite good ideas. The problem is in working out the details, expressing them clearly, and (often enough) remembering them in the morning.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Throw away line. Sorry about that. It seems like the fewer cognitive altering substances we are currently using the clearer our cognition is. That said, who wants to be sober all the time?
Thank you. I think?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Flexibility enables us to adapt. You're right, we don't know how the future will effect us, so I study a little in each field and not just my primary interests. This is the reason I want to spend more time on this forum learning from others. As much as I want to learn from other people's passions, I also want to develop real connections with people who share my passions.
Especially among writers. Stephen King drank and snorted so much coke that he doesn't remember writing several of his novels, including Cujo. Then there's that quote inaccurately attributed to Hemingway: "Write drunk. Edit sober."
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right? And I'm sure many of us share the love for Mother Mary...Jane.
? Flannery O'Connor
I mention the 1980's because this was the era during which neo-liberalism bloomed via Thatcher and Reagan and really started the campaign to cut away at humanities departments in earnest, along with many notions of community life.
Quoting Christopher
These days I am mostly interested in the positions others have arrived at (on questions of meaning) and why. I am trying to get a better understanding of the idea of intersubjectivity and whether this is a useful concept.
Mass and length can't be compared in a meaningful way? :chin:
An example of exasperation would be someone reading your first sentence there and just automatically switching off. Start simple and then build up to more condensed sentences.
Note: My own writing style is not exacting concise! :D
I think the problem with the humanities is the incessant push to say something new, something novel, something different. This leads, in most cases, to saying less and less about things that are of concern to human being and human life.
One irony is that there is a push in the classics to be "relevant", but this means to subject them to current political, social, and literary theories that are themselves motivated by the search for theoretical novelty and the need to demonstrate technical mastery of arcane terminology and insular, self-referential issues that are the flavor of the day.
Wise words.
Formal education prepares one for life-long learning, IF one is willing to practice it.
Some people think that the humanities progress with research adding more and more knowledge. There are marginal gains, but the content has been available for analysis for a long time, and there is little ground that has not been plowed deeply and in every direction.
It is not a problem that the humanities are a plateau.
I agree in so far as the ground has been plowed, but I do not consider the current state of the humanities as being at a plateau. I think the attempt to go further than what has already been said has led to a decline. But this is not to say that no good work is being done.
Yes, that is the problem. The keywords are most cases.
I agree. "A person does not act upon the world, the world acts upon him."---B.F. Skinner
However, according to a contextualist perspective, people modify their behavior in order to function in their social and physical environments, and they either become its producers or its products. Self-efficacious individuals are more likely to identify artificial limitations in both social and academic settings, and more importantly, they may think of innovative solutions to alter the confines or develop methods to circumnavigate around them.
Quoting Tom Storm
That makes sense. The Reaganites. Strong opinions on both sides.
In that specific context, yes.
Please explain.
He frequently makes that point...he might be on to something.Quoting I like sushi
Sometimes brevity is overrated. :)
Is this the difference between knowledge and wisdom?
That's true. It's like saying we know everything because the bases are covered. Yet, we are still in the infancy stage of applied sapience.
I am confused by the question mark. Are you asking me if they can't be compared in a meaningful way?
Well yeah!
I wasn't aiming that high. Just this: In school students learn 'how to learn' and start accumulating knowledge about the world. Given curiosity about the world, lifelong learning continues all the way to the grave. (Wisdom isn't one of my favorite words.). Many people aren't all that curious, and/or do not have good knowledge acquisition skills. It's not a fault if you didn't have the chance, but shame on college graduates who stop reading widely once they graduate. We can become stupid if we are not careful.
Quoting jgill
Absolutely. The solitary writer can develop numerous bad habits. Polish comes from having our rough spots scraped off by other writers. It's not a process we like, but after a time one's writing is much better.
Im confused Is the debate proposition not Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia? You dont seem to be explicitly affirming or opposing it. You tell us a story wherein you provide at least one reason we should deny the proposition. Im just browsing this debate category in hope to find and participate in a more formal debate. This seems to be a discussion on debate, which is fine. Im happy to participate on either side of any debate on any topic. Im just trying to sharpen my up my skills (or perhaps my competence).
What is a social science? A social science is any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects.
These disciplines/activities are a study of humans of humans by humans for humans. :snicker: They fall under the broad rubric of the Delphic maxim temet nosce (know thyself). Notwithstanding that this is self-promotion, my own view on the matter is we're like stroke patients with hemiagnosia (neglecting/ignoring aspects of us - culture, creativity, values, etc. - that make us us) if we downgrade the importance of the humanities & the social sciences.
The name humanities is a big hint in re how vital these subjects are to our understanding of ourselves. The social sciences are designed to interpret the relationship between the individual and the group, what's the bond that holds the community and how these bonds are stressed and sometimes broken.
Take that
In to the sauce again, AS? My comment was made on a different thread. :roll: