Science and value
My response to a recent debate, prompted by someone complaining that science/engineering students shouldn't be forced to take humanities courses:
Whoa, what? I'm "acting like techies aren't real humans"?! Uh...I don't see that at all. What I'm saying is that there are certain basics of a liberal education which are important for almost all majors and career paths, and most of those are taught in more fuzzy classes. Developing good writing/communication skills, for example: very practical importance. Beyond the practical, there's a philosophical argument:
When I talk about "well-roundedness" what I mean is you should have a perspective on the broader context and societal significance of the work you do. I frankly do think a lot of people lack that - regardless of academic focus - but the point of a liberal education in theory is to help people get that kind of perspective.
For example, I think everyone going into any of the experimental sciences should be required to study philosophy of science and at least a bit of sociology. I can elaborate on why if you want me to. The short answer is it prevents people from using scientific advances to do monstrous things and believing they're not ethically responsible for the results because all they're doing is practicing "objective, value free science" because if you've studied social science you understand that natural science is FAR from being objective and value-free. I feel it's absolutely inexcusable for scientists to ignore the social and political implications of their work, and it's insane to develop new technologies just because we can, or without a decent amount of consideration put into what the direct and more indirect social effects will be.
Obviously IHUM has very little to do with what I was just talking about. But the concept of a liberal education in general, I think, is a sound one, for the above reasons and others. And frankly, I learned more that's of real practical value in my life from my IHUM classes last year than I would ever learn in a chemistry or physics class.
There are plenty of fuzzies who wouldn't take a scientific course if not forced to, but they don't hold the sciences in utter contempt and consider the knowledge they have to offer to be worthless. There are definitely techies (though they're a minority) who think that everything they can learn in a literature class, a philosophy class or even a sociology class is worthless and irrelevant, and that scares me. Even if it's not relevant to your career, I feel a lot of it is extremely relevant to being an educated person and a person who acts responsibly in society.
In short, a liberal education is important because there are far too many people out there who have no understanding of themselves as individuals in a societal context, or that society/culture doesn't have to be the way it is. That's what it attempts to address. Whether it succeeds in doing so is a different matter.
Whoa, what? I'm "acting like techies aren't real humans"?! Uh...I don't see that at all. What I'm saying is that there are certain basics of a liberal education which are important for almost all majors and career paths, and most of those are taught in more fuzzy classes. Developing good writing/communication skills, for example: very practical importance. Beyond the practical, there's a philosophical argument:
When I talk about "well-roundedness" what I mean is you should have a perspective on the broader context and societal significance of the work you do. I frankly do think a lot of people lack that - regardless of academic focus - but the point of a liberal education in theory is to help people get that kind of perspective.
For example, I think everyone going into any of the experimental sciences should be required to study philosophy of science and at least a bit of sociology. I can elaborate on why if you want me to. The short answer is it prevents people from using scientific advances to do monstrous things and believing they're not ethically responsible for the results because all they're doing is practicing "objective, value free science" because if you've studied social science you understand that natural science is FAR from being objective and value-free. I feel it's absolutely inexcusable for scientists to ignore the social and political implications of their work, and it's insane to develop new technologies just because we can, or without a decent amount of consideration put into what the direct and more indirect social effects will be.
Obviously IHUM has very little to do with what I was just talking about. But the concept of a liberal education in general, I think, is a sound one, for the above reasons and others. And frankly, I learned more that's of real practical value in my life from my IHUM classes last year than I would ever learn in a chemistry or physics class.
There are plenty of fuzzies who wouldn't take a scientific course if not forced to, but they don't hold the sciences in utter contempt and consider the knowledge they have to offer to be worthless. There are definitely techies (though they're a minority) who think that everything they can learn in a literature class, a philosophy class or even a sociology class is worthless and irrelevant, and that scares me. Even if it's not relevant to your career, I feel a lot of it is extremely relevant to being an educated person and a person who acts responsibly in society.
In short, a liberal education is important because there are far too many people out there who have no understanding of themselves as individuals in a societal context, or that society/culture doesn't have to be the way it is. That's what it attempts to address. Whether it succeeds in doing so is a different matter.