"Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia."

Christopher

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! :)

Tom Storm

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? — Christopher

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.

apokrisis

"Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia." — Christopher

Every academic field requires the humanities and social sciences, which is why philosophy is considered the "mother of academia." — 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.

Tom Storm

Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia." — Christopher

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.

BC

He drunkenly stated, "Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia." — Christopher

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.

jgill

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. — Bitter Crank

And there lies a tale to be told :wink:

Janus

Academia is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. — Bitter Crank

Whatever you put into a sewer, what you get out is sewage, Is that really the analogy you were looking for?

BC

↪Janus

It's an academic joke.

Janus

↪Bitter Crank

Ah, I thought that might possibly be the case; very subtle!

Christopher

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... — Tom Storm

Yes, that is the point.

picking wisely what you choose to study. — 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.

Tom Storm

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. — Christopher

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.

apokrisis

↪Christopher

Freud would be a prime example of the romantic turn in his claim that the human animal is essentially irrational. A stew of feeling with a thin veneer of socialised rationality pasted over the top.

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.

I like sushi

↪Christopher

I think maybe he meant this more along the lines of ‘they are currently not exactly at their peak’. I think that is a reasonable point to espouse, but it is not so easy to gauge this.

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 we’ll 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 we’re reforming/rediscovering/rethinking long held views and tearing them apart as best we can?

Agent Smith

why are you quoting drunks — Bitter Crank

In vino veritas (truth in wine).

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.

I like sushi

↪Agent Smith

Philosophy is classed as part of the humanities. Hence, ‘Arts’ rather than ‘Science’ … yet Social Sciences are not always classed as ‘Science’ … demarcations are just demarcations. Anthropology is another subject area that straddles both the Arts and the Sciences.

Agent Smith

↪I like sushi

:up: Danke, kind person.

Cuthbert

He drunkenly stated, "Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia." — Christopher

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.

BC

↪Christopher

The 'real question' isn't whether the humanities and social sciences have a useful place in academia, it's whether your brother has a good reason to go back to college, and a good plan to succeed.

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?

BC

I like the sewer analogy, nice! — Agent Smith

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:

One particular bit of advice which I recall
Which is the reason I bring up this whole dreary story
Is something he said once before they took him away
To the Massachusetts state home for the bewildered
He said, "Life is like a sewer
What you get out of it depends on what you put into it"
It's always seems to me that this is precisely
The sort of dynamic, positive thinking
That we so desperately need today
In these trying times of crisis and universal brouhaha

Agent Smith

↪Bitter Crank

:up: Danke Bitter Crank.

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!

jgill

Whatever you put into a sewer, what you get out is sewage, Is that really the analogy you were looking for? — Janus

I never heard this one, but from CS there is the equivalent and more or less standard that's been around forever: Garbage

Christopher

↪I like sushi

I meant to emphasize that the semiotics of all disciplines evolve only according to our perception of their theoretical underpinnings. I find it odd that more priority isn't given to understanding the connections between what we've learned and the impact it will have on the most rapidly growing field—computer science, AI. If all fields interconnect, AI will produce what we program based on our composition instead of our comprehensive understanding of how the micro communications between each field respond independently of our control. AI is the result of our comprehension. It's more probable that the singularity will form and see that there isn't any logic to our processes. So, I guess it's all semantics. I know what I'm saying is nonsense. I'm hoping to learn from everyone.

Christopher

cost/benefit question.

What is your brother's goal? — Bitter Crank

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.

Christopher

drink. — Cuthbert

What's your drink of preference? I'm buying.

Christopher

apples to oranges. — Agent Smith

Although they still grow from a tree. Why not compare?

Christopher

But does this really matter? — Tom Storm

Well, nothing really does. "The two enemies of human happiness are pain and boredom."---Arthur Schopenhauer

Christopher

justification than others. — Tom Storm

Your post explains this very well. It's insightful to me, if not anyone else.

Christopher

value of studying courses taught in that anti-Enlightenment spirit. — apokrisis

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.

Christopher

since the 1980's — Tom Storm

Only since the 80s'?

Christopher

read what interests me — Tom Storm

What interests you?

Christopher

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 — apokrisis

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.

"Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia."

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions