Random thought, but intelligence and academic superiority, at least in this area, seems to be almost completely focused on the realms of math and science, which I think is a real shame.
Because the other disciplines don't offer tangible results of progress. 50 years from now, humanities majors will still be arguing the same basic concepts, without really offering any real new knowledge.
Whereas in the math and sciences, 50 years from now, the future scientists will have tangible progress they can share with those from the past.
Well I don't mean exclusively humanities. Stuff including politics, international relations, business, finance, and the economy, etc. I guess I'm just saying this because math and science aren't my strong points, and it makes me a tad insecure.
Yeah, and they are all lacking in concrete, tangible progress. That's the issue I have with those fields. They are all closer to an art, rather than a science.
i may be way off on this as it is past midnight, but i like to think of the humanities and related fields as not focused on progress but rather on preservation. one is deductive; the other, inductive. a historian emphasizes accuracy in documentation; a scientist demands accuracy in prediction.
i would like to think that both fields require talent, dedication, and creativity. i'm sure none of these distinctions are new to you, though.
Comments 4
Whereas in the math and sciences, 50 years from now, the future scientists will have tangible progress they can share with those from the past.
Reply
Reply
Reply
i would like to think that both fields require talent, dedication, and creativity. i'm sure none of these distinctions are new to you, though.
Reply
Leave a comment