"A larger problem is the arrogance of the liberal arts"
Don't even get me started. At most, if not all, universities in the US, undergrads who are in a science or engineering track program are required to take a certain amount of humanities courses. At A&M, engineers are required to take Engineering Ethics, so they understand their responsibilities. In general, I don't mind this, although the implication that techies are lopsided science and math is usually wrong. Many tech types are history and/or literature buffs also. But, ok. However, despite the fact that our society is extremely dependent on science and technology, liberal arts track students aren't required to have any significant science or math. You see, science, math and logic is soooo hard for creative types, it just isn't fair. Besides, once they've mastered what passes for critical thinking in the liberal arts and humanities world, they are equipped to deal with anything.
Which is so much bullshit. Historically speaking, many of the "name" artists and philosophers were also noted scientists and/or mathematicians and engineers. Besides, there is a great deal of creativity required to work in science, engineering and mathematics. The ones who are just little robots don't get very far. There is nothing to support the idea that there is a fundamental difference between the science and the the arts and humanities, both are expressions of humanity and culture. |
