> These fields are critical. I would agree with that. But, we can do with 10x less humanities majors. Even if we start that process now though, it'll be decad

> These fields are critical. I would agree with that. But, we can do with 10x less humanities majors. Even if we start that process now though, it'll be decades before it's reasonable again. > to reconcile the new avenues of life opened up by global interconnectivity of data and logistics with some of our more basic fears and prejudices to which we are ALL still subject. I have actually studies Philosophy, and uh. I found it disappointing. It sounds good. We should be able to just reason our way to the next great paradigm shift, and adapt to it intentionally, in a controlled fashion. In order to do that we should study the past. Except, when it comes to mathematical philosophy, there's 2 kinds of humanities majors: Humanities majors that first got a PhD in mathematics (or some other scientific field). These have large contributions, but ... mostly to failed mathematical endeavors, like the axiom of choice and proving Turing wrong. But ... great contributions, it would be very wrong to say people like this didn't contribute. Note that pretty much every last antiquity philosopher we know falls in this category. I would also like to point out that it takes pretty exceptional people to achieve this. Most math professors can't do it. Most philosophy professors can't do this. Pure humanities majors ... these have had many theories about math, physics even machine learning. Almost without exception, they were wrong. And worse, some of these people were great impediments to progress because they managed to get high positions in important universities ... and used them to sabotage advances, so there is an argument to be made that their sum total contributions are actually negative. Studying the past doesn't work because of the same reason that a lot of statistical models fail. If you have data points A and B, "predicting" anything between A and B can work pretty well. However, what you want to do in the humanities, when you have A, B, C, D and then predict E ... that fails spectacularly more often than not. Again, same in statistics as in philosophy.