Science and humanities cannot truly compete, as they are both important for a greater understandi...

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Science and humanities cannot truly compete, as they are both important for a greater understanding of the world. However, both areas of study have been over-emphasized on a university level. by Mind Map: Science and humanities cannot truly compete, as they are both important for a greater understanding of the world. However, both areas of study have been over-emphasized on a university level.

1. The humanities serve a greater purpose/we cannot live without the humanities

1.1. Konnikova argues that in the effort to legitimize themselves, academics have taken the use of science too far. She argues that while statistics and scientific thinking or very helpful in some areas, attempting to replace areas of study that depend on critical thinking, diverse perspectives, and philosophy with technical thinking demonstrates a lack of understanding about the world. Konnikova's view is perhaps the most utilitarian of these essays, and perhaps also the strongest, as she doesn't argue against science, but provides solid examples where science cannot be used, which are still important situations that require humanities skills. Konnikova, Maria. "Humanities aren't a science. Stop treating them like one." Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2012, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/humanities-arent-a-science-stop-treating-them-like-one/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

1.2. Dix is a proponent of the humanities because he believes that the humanities are a collection of life-lessons that extend beyond the scope of just our lives. He criticizes those who make the humanities debate solely about money, citing the idea that universities should not be treated as businesses. He claims that the humanities aid us in understanding ourselves, our world, and our purpose in a society that is becoming more and more technological and cold. This is an area in which the debate over the humanities differs depending on personal values. Dix has a strong distaste for judging universities economically, while opponents of humanities funding value financial reward every much. Dix, Willard. "Eliminating The Humanities Decimates Every Student's Education." Forbes, 28 Mar. 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/willarddix/2018/03/28/eliminating-the-humanities-decimates-every-students-education/#2032d08a5803. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

2. The sciences are more profitable/useful

2.1. Burriesci argues that from an economic standpoint, the utility of the sciences far outweighs those of the arts and humanities. However, he goes further, predicting that in the future, our world as we know it will undergo the same thing that the music industry went through as music became digitalized--everything around us will become downloadable, and knowing highly technical skills will become pointless. At this point, having educated citizens with critical thinking skills and an understanding of the value of the beauty of the world will be most helpful. Burriesci's thesis is vastly different from all other arguments in favor of or against the humanities--instead of simply just thinking about the here and now of the job market, he looks to the future, resulting in a complex and well thought-out argument. Burriesci, Matt. "The Arts and Humanities Aren't Worth a Dime." Guernica, 22 Jun. 2015, https://www.guernicamag.com/matt-burriesci-the-arts-and-humanities-arent-worth-a-dime/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

2.2. Fish argues that although many people have made arguments in favor of the humanities, they are all ultimately very weak. He says that there is no believable way to justify that the study of the humanities can have the same utility or impact as the sciences. However, he concludes with the notion that the humanities do not need to justification, as their sole purpose in existence within universities is for upholding tradition. Fish's perspective is not new--many other opponents of funding for the humanities share the opinion that arguments made in the favor of the humanities have no merit, no matter what. Fish, Stanley. "Will the Humanities Save Us?" The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2008, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

2.3. Stover's argument is less about how the sciences are more useful and more an attack on any stances that dare to defend the humanities as useful. He suggests that all of these defenses are extremely weak and untrue. Finally, he states that the humanities don't need to be done away with, as they are the foundation for universities, but that it is crucial to understand that their sole purpose is to create a class of people that are seen as highly educated in very specific, inane areas of study. Stover shares almost identical ideas with Fish, with both of them arguing that defenses of the humanities are weak, but that universities need the humanities to survive and thrive. Stover, Justin. "There is No Case for the Humanities." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 Mar. 2018, https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-Is-No-Case-for-the/242724. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

3. University education in general is over-sold

3.1. Shell, as a professor of journalism, argues that college education, while a marvelous thing that allows students' minds and beings to grow, is over-sold as a one-way ticket to success. She offers that this is because universities have transformed into major businesses whose students are merely their sources of money. She concludes that the "skills gap" is mostly fictional, that not enough middle-of-the-road jobs exist for college grads, and that to overcome this problem we need to: 1. raise minimum wage, since service jobs are where most people are needed, and that 2. we need to move away from the toxic idea that our jobs define us. Shell's thesis may share the same overall value as Chakrabotty, but many of her insights are very unique, contradictory to advocates of both science and humanities programs. Shell, Ellen Rupell. “How the Modern Economy Pits Workers Against One Another.” The Chronicle, 16 Nov. 2018, https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-the-Modern-Economy-Pits/245043, Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

3.2. Chakrabortty argues that universities have been mis-sold, even going as far as to imply that they are scams. Although his argument is all about universities in Britain, his essential points revolve around the same criticism of universities as businesses, something that the U.S. and Britain have in common, which differs from higher education in other European countries. He states that universities have led to major class differences and financial struggle for students, and that free tuition, higher taxes, and vocational schools should all be encouraged as ways to combat the over-saturation of universities. Chakrabortty's ideas are likely to be unpopular with many of the other opinions in this map--his advocacy for free tuition and a complete structural shift is likely hard for others to swallow, besides perhaps that of Willard Dix. Chakrabortty, Aditya. "Mis-sold, expensive and overhyped: why our universities are a con." The Guardian, 20 Sep. 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/20/university-factory-failed-tony-blair-social-mobility-jobs. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.