are humanities/social scientists greater critical thinkers than STEM students

[Crawlspace]

@bump

Personally, I don’t think it’s a question of “greater” or “lesser”, but rather different. STEM students and professors’ fields tend to revolve around rigorous logic, much like mathematics. There’s typically a right solution, or if there are multiple correct solutions, there are usually ones that are optimal for certain parameters.

Humanities students and professors are more used to thinking outside that rigorously logical box. Since in most cases, the answer isn’t really provable, their concern is making sure that their solutions are plausible and reasonably backed up, as in many cases, there’s not a *single *right answer, or if there is, it can’t be reasonably known.

So from the perspective of the STEM types, the humanities types seem to be absurdly loosey-goosey. The STEM sorts are used to looking for provable, efficient and correct solutions. This takes critical thinking to be able to winnow down potential avenues of solution and to evaluate potential solutions impassively.

I agree. The problem that crops up in these debates is that the two sides wind up talking past each other. When scientists speak of critical thinking skills, they mean an ability to assess prior data to come up with a testable hypothesis that will yield new insights that can be verified. Humanities and social scientists seem to mean something else entirely. If I were more cynical, I’d call it rhetoric.

@monstro

It’s a good thing you aren’t running the world, then. I rather like being able to watch films and TV shows with well-formulated plots and well-written scripts. I like visual arts that occasionally harken back to classical themes and styles. And when it comes to music, I don’t want to keep listening to the same sampled music and beats only with new lyrics thrown on top. I want to listen to artists with the chops to do their own original compositions.

When people are formally educated, you churn out master craftsman and artisans. Without formal education, you get a bunch of hacks.

Is there evidence that studying art leads one to be a better artist? If you look at many of the greats, there seems to be a pretty even split between those who were and were not formally educated. Even in modern times, there seems to be no correlation. Matt Groening has a BA in Philosophy; Mike Judge has a BS in Physics. Harvard cranks out tons of sitcom writers and comedians, but none of them hold a candle to Pryor or Carlin. Julliard has some fantastic musicians, but are they better than those hacks John, Paul, George and Ringo? The common denominator seems to be passion, practice and in interesting/unique perspective on the world.

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Well said. It certainly seems to be the case that STEM scientists are more prone to believing that their capabilities ought also to extend to the social sciences, and they generally use fallacious reasoning (‘my kid could paint that’ and similar) to come to that belief. Just witness the recent deluge of (very capable!) physicists trying their hand at philosophy—Michio Kaku’s ‘The Physics of Consciousness’, Lawrence Krauss’ ‘A Universe from Nothing’, Max Tegmark’s ‘Our Mathematical Universe’—all of which are really just bad philosophy. So there’s a trend in STEM scientists falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect, overestimating their abilities in a field precisely due to their lack of knowledge of it.

That’s not to say the same thing doesn’t also happen the other way around, but it seems less conspicuous to me. But from my own experience, there’s a pervasive attitude in STEM departments that’s rather derisive of the social sciences, which often goes along with holding terribly simplistic views of the positions those social sciences debate. In general, if you’re not deeply familiar with the literature, your chances at producing worthwhile contributions either in the social sciences or the STEM fields are rather slim; but unfortunately, it seems that one’s confidence in being able to to so is rather unfettered by such considerations.

To the extent that this is true, part of the reason is likely that STEM people have had to take humanities courses. Perhaps my education was different from the norm (Jesuit HS and College), but I had to take intro and upper level literature, philosophy, theology, history, economics, art and ethics. My classmates in these courses were often majoring in the subject. On the other hand, humanities people could take specific courses we referred to as Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Math for non-science majors that fulfilled their science and math requirement (singular, as in one science and one math). They were fully aware they were getting a glossed over version of the subject (again, singular. They weren’t even getting a glossed over version of all three Physics, Biology and Chemistry, but just one.)

I’d also argue that it is no more common for a scientist to assume competence in a humanities subject than it is for a humanities scholar to assume competence in another area of the humanities. The world is chock full of writers who think they understand economics, economists who think they understand sociology, everyone who’s watched the weather channel thinks they understand climate science etc. This isn’t necessarily a result of arrogance, but familiarity

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

This I find deeply puzzling. We’re steeped in the solutions that came out of the humanities—our political and economic systems, the ever increasing equality between ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations, the education system, our code of law, and on and on and on. Basically, every aspect of our social lives is subject to continuous discourse in the social sciences, and the movements born therein shape the future of society. Our world isn’t just born out of gadgets and scientific advancements, important though they may be—see the industrial revolution, or the information age, and so on. It’s equally well a result of social, political, and yes, even philosophical movements.

Don’t you find it a bit glib to say that effectively everything that results from human interaction is a solution created by the humanities. That would frame the humanities as a subject concerned with finding solutions to the problems caused by their prior solutions. That is, if the increase in equality is a solution arrived at from the work of the humanities, isn’t it only fair to assume slavery, subjugation, and anti-sodomy laws were also approved ‘solutions’ arrived at through the critical thinking skills of prior humanities scholars?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Crawlspace

To the extent that this is true, part of the reason is likely that STEM people have had to take humanities courses.

I didn’t (not in college, at least). Neither did most of my colleagues.

Don’t you find it a bit glib to say that effectively everything that results from human interaction is a solution created by the humanities.

Sure I do. But I didn’t say that. However, it doesn’t really strike me as reasonable to believe that modern markets would be the way they are without The Wealth of Nations, that modern feminism would be the same without The Other Sex, or that modern (western) society would even be remotely the same without the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenment.

isn’t it only fair to assume slavery, subjugation, and anti-sodomy laws were also approved ‘solutions’ arrived at through the critical thinking skills of prior humanities scholars?

Well, sure (to a degree; many of these things might have emerged within a society that is wholly unreflecting of its own constitution). Like natural science brought us the aether, phlogiston, vitalism, preformationism, phrenology, or even so-called ‘scientific racism’ and so on. One would of course prefer to always immediately draw the perfect solution out of a hat, but that’s not going to happen. So, as in the natural sciences, progress is largely a matter of recognizing and rectifying prior errors. Which is, of course, a good thing.

[monstro]

@Crawlspace

Is there evidence that studying art leads one to be a better artist? If you look at many of the greats, there seems to be a pretty even split between those who were and were not formally educated. Even in modern times, there seems to be no correlation. Matt Groening has a BA in Philosophy; Mike Judge has a BS in Physics. Harvard cranks out tons of sitcom writers and comedians, but none of them hold a candle to Pryor or Carlin. Julliard has some fantastic musicians, but are they better than those hacks John, Paul, George and Ringo? The common denominator seems to be passion, practice and in interesting/unique perspective on the world.

Piccasso was formally trained.

As was Monet, O’keeffe, Cezanne, and Modigliani.

It is certainly possible these folks would still be masters even if they had never gone to school. But it’s also possible that school was where they were able to couple skill with passion, and discipline with passion.

It is also undeniable that formaling school forms the basis of one’s professional network. Artists do not become “great” unless someone knows about them. They have to be discovered. Since it helps if the folks doing the discovering know how to discern a gem from a hack, they tend to also find arts training helpful.

But I don’t know why you’re pointing to the greats. Genuises have extraordinary talent, by definition. But most artists are not trying to be one of the “greats”, just as most scientists and engineers aren’t trying to be one of the “greats”. Most people are just trying to bring home a decent paycheck, and for this you must merely be sufficient. I was trained in music by “sufficient” musicians–folks who went to school for four years so that that they could be music teachers. They would have been unemployable in this capacity if it had not been for their formal educations.

Autodidacts who believe they are too cool for school often rely on resources that were developed by the formally trained. Textbooks aren’t usually written by self-trained “masters”. They are written by academics. And a lot of self-taught masters were mentored by folks who were formally trained.

Lastly, I would argue that education is essential for not just producing artists, but also consumers of art. I know that I wouldn’t have an appreciation for classical music if it hadn’t been all the music training I received in high school. Many of us STEM geeks benefited from our years of service in high school bands and orchestras–and this wouldn’t have been possible if we hadn’t been formally taught how to play. Art isn’t merely an endeavor for the greats. It’s for everyone. Education makes it accessible to everyone.

[msmith537]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

This I find deeply puzzling. We’re steeped in the solutions that came out of the humanities—our political and economic systems, the ever increasing equality between ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations, the education system, our code of law, and on and on and on. Basically, every aspect of our social lives is subject to continuous discourse in the social sciences, and the movements born therein shape the future of society. Our world isn’t just born out of gadgets and scientific advancements, important though they may be—see the industrial revolution, or the information age, and so on. It’s equally well a result of social, political, and yes, even philosophical movements.

But you haven’t solved any of those things!

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

—all of which are really just bad philosophy

I’m curious. What makes philosophy “good” or “bad”?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@msmith537

But you haven’t solved any of those things!

True enough, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to deny that the situation has been greatly improved along all of these lines. Additionally, one must be careful not to confuse the criteria for ‘solutions’ in the social sciences/humanities with those of the natural sciences (as Sokal did): typically, in the latter, there’s a matter of fact that one simply needs to uncover. It’s like a game of 20 questions: accumulating more and more data eventually suffices to nail down the facts.

But it’s not reasonable to assume that there is one unique ‘best’ society, one ‘correct’ aesthetic, and so on, that one just needs to discover. Rather, the notion of what’s good, or what’s beautiful, in themselves are liable to change, depending on the society giving rise to them. Thus, we have here a creative process—much more like an ongoing discussion than a simple fact-finding endeavor. That makes evaluation harder, and is ultimately the reason why many people naively believe that there is no progress in these fields; but upon closer examination, one readily notices the many ways in which the present discourse improves upon the past, and its correlata in society at large (such as the abolition of slavery in large parts of the western world, the increasing movement towards greater equality between the sexes, gay marriage, and so on).

I’m curious. What makes philosophy “good” or “bad”?

One thing that makes philosophy bad is, for instance, focusing on overly broad questions that can only receive vague answers, such as this one. Rather, one should work out a coherent, clearly defined thesis, and lay out the supporting arguments in all the detail necessary, clarify one’s assumptions and why they are reasonable, and so on. Bad philosophy, in contrast, uses sloppy reasoning to arrive at often preconceived conclusions, presenting muddled arguments that can be interpreted in a myriad different ways, and so on. Additionally, a hallmark of bad philosophy is the failure of engaging with different views on one’s topic that have been presented before, which often stems from ignorance of the relevant literature.