Mark Slouka on the humanities vs. "mathandscience"

There's a good, contrarian piece in the September Harper's by Mark Slouka called "Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school." It's certainly not the first plea for the continuing importance of the humanities in a society that no longer values them, but it's a well argued one, I'd say.

(It's print or subscription only, thus no link.)

Sorry for not blogging much lately. I blame Twitter, partly, for leaving me with less blogging energy. (Find me there as @karthur.)

Comments

[JJR]

Gaa! More bloggy, less twitty please...

[Nathan Zeldes]

A math and science graduate myself, I fully agree with the importance of a rounded education including the humanities. The gradual erosion of these in curricula is a serious problem.

That said, I am uneasy with the use of "Dehumanized". Nice word play, but the implication that math and science are somehow less "human" than literature or history is IMHO wrong. We are the only species that does science; that makes science a deeply human trait, a real part of being human, just as the humanities are. It is also one of the high intellectual achievements of the species. Perhaps it is more accurate to call a school that eliminates the humanities "semi-human".

[john hammond]

In his essay, Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school, Mark Slouka takes the (unnecessarily) adversarial relationship between the humanities and the sciences to a new level. Although there are many examples of sloppy (or at least naïve) reasoning, let’s start with the following statement from the essay:

…science addresses the outer world; the humanities, the inner one.

He represents science and humanities as two non-intersecting sets. And in doing so, he provides a clue to the origins of his ability to do so: he has never viewed the humanities as an outsider.

To begin with, mathematics is a philosophy, not a science. It is a way of looking at the world that is, as far as we know, uniquely human. It is poetry that speaks volumes about ourselves and the world around us. It is an art form in its own right that, when carefully considered, tells us at least as much about our own minds as it does about the outside world.

History as an academic discipline discovers and recounts events, but seldom explains them. Although there is no lack of opinions within the Academy about the forces that move us as a species, these usually don’t even aspire to the level of being wrong—they are simply not provable. More importantly, they do not address the inner world, as no historian has ever explained any event in fundamentally human terms—what motivates behavior at the individual or group level—without reaching into the storehouse of scientific inquiry.

Literature reveals personal experiences. Good literature creates personal experiences. Great literature influences entire cultures. But the value of literature and the power of literature are distinct and independent: Mein Kampf exerted tremendous power on a culture, but is not highly valued as a piece of writing. If the Bible were submitted de novo to a publishing house today, it would likely be rejected. But we study it because it has exerted a powerful influence over the western world. Does the Bible really explain or address any matters of the inner world? Or do those scientists who attempt to understand religiosity at the level of the brain better address the inner world?

And as with history, there are many opinions within the Academy about the meaning and value of any given book. But do the letters that literary critics write to one another—I believe they are referred to as publications—have any larger value than getting tenure or the next grant from an endowment?

I grew up in a family who made their living in the arts. Moreover, they made a living from their artistic output, not simply teaching others to create a product that they themselves could not adequately sell. I even worked professionally in the arts in my youth, before studying science in college. I chose to major in science because I loved it, not because I might be able to make a living at it. I took lots of literature classes in college, four foreign languages, music, history, art. In short, a liberal arts education. Because of this, I can’t see a clear distinction between science and the humanities.

I know nothing about Mark Slouka aside from this essay. But I will go out on a limb and guess that Mark took the minimum requirements in math and science in college. I would also wager that he skimped on history, foreign languages, music, or just about anything other than English. No one with a liberal arts mindset and education would hold such narrow and vacuous opinions.

He writes with the uncontested narcissism and anger of an only-child who has grown up to find that, not only are there other people in this world, some are more popular than he is. In reaction, he holed up within the Academy, learned to craft a good sentence, then satisfied himself with teaching others to do the same. Occasionally, he tries to make observations from afar and massage them into entertaining stories or essays.

Whatever happened to writers and philosophers that have the curiosity and humility to experience life before trying to sell others their stories and opinions? If Mark had taken even a few advanced science or math courses, he would not have composed such a well-crafted body of silly statements.

[air-jordan-1]

I think the decisions companies are making now about what to cut and how far are some of the hardest and most important they’ll ever make. It’s in part a question of how to scale down costs (which usually means the workforce) in synch with shrinking revenues and profits. But it’s also about how to the retain capability and build the strength that will enable you to succeed when the tough times are behind us. A knee-jerk reaction to cut costs regardless is a desperate move; hanging onto staff you can’t afford is a risky and possibly foolish one. Neither labor hoarding nor deep cuts are right or wrong in themselves, rather the challenge is how do you do what you must (stay profitable), while continuing to build the strength of your business and emerge from the recession as a more competitive player.

[Christian Louboutin Sandals]

ther thing would be the amount of manure that would accumulate over a

[Christian Louboutin Shoes]

and sign you up for the team. We won't take no