4 ms·

irahul has been exceedingly rude and hostile, and demonstrated not even a hint of intellectual curiosity. It's pretty clear that he's already decided that nobod

irahul has been exceedingly rude and hostile, and demonstrated not even a hint of intellectual curiosity. It's pretty clear that he's already decided that nobody, claiming that a humanities education provides benefits vis-a-vis a technical education, can be right. All of his responses have been a defensive, reactionary manifestation of that prejudiced conclusion. My response is largely in jest -- a lighthearted guess as to why somebody would be so rigidly opposed to the benign and obvious concept of comparative advantages -- since it's either that or flame him back. I can't provide a defense for what he thinks other people have said on other comments. The first response was out of line, that's why I removed it. I think this one is much better.

scott_s 15y ago
I disagree. I have not found his comments rude, hostile, or lacking in intellectual curiosity. I think you are too emotionally invested in the discussion to evaluate his comments fairly.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Well, you're welcome to your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I think as someone who has both an engineering and a humanities education, I am the last person who would have an emotional stake one way or another. On the other hand, a cursory examination of his comments would show that every response to "the benefit of a humanities education is X" is met with a reaction with something of the form "engineering students can also do X" (meaning that they are physically capable of doing it). This reaction occurs regardless of the merits of the initial claim, and without a basic examination of its points. He then delves into what I can only call a petty dissection of the semantics of the argument. If I had said that a benefit of my education was the prominent role of public speaking and debate, no doubt that would immediately have been met by a predictable, worthless (in the literal sense of providing no value) rejoinder: CS students can debate also. This is a degenerate point and not at relevant to a serious discussion of what benefits are provided by a humanities education. That sort of criticism can be leveled at anything. This doesn't even address the fact that the way he has chosen to frame this conversation is totally absurd. "CS doesn't do abstract" is what he thinks people are saying, which would be a ridiculous statement to make. The terms of the debate don't allow for any sort of gradation or nuance -- this perspective can't admit that there is a qualitative difference in abstract reasoning between engineers and philosophy, while still allowing that both receive an education in it.

scott_s 15y ago

I disagree. I have not found his comments rude, hostile, or lacking in intellectual curiosity. I think you are too emotionally invested in the discussion to evaluate his comments fairly.

jessedhillon 15y ago
Well, you're welcome to your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I think as someone who has both an engineering and a humanities education, I am the last person who would have an emotional stake one way or another. On the other hand, a cursory examination of his comments would show that every response to "the benefit of a humanities education is X" is met with a reaction with something of the form "engineering students can also do X" (meaning that they are physically capable of doing it). This reaction occurs regardless of the merits of the initial claim, and without a basic examination of its points. He then delves into what I can only call a petty dissection of the semantics of the argument. If I had said that a benefit of my education was the prominent role of public speaking and debate, no doubt that would immediately have been met by a predictable, worthless (in the literal sense of providing no value) rejoinder: CS students can debate also. This is a degenerate point and not at relevant to a serious discussion of what benefits are provided by a humanities education. That sort of criticism can be leveled at anything. This doesn't even address the fact that the way he has chosen to frame this conversation is totally absurd. "CS doesn't do abstract" is what he thinks people are saying, which would be a ridiculous statement to make. The terms of the debate don't allow for any sort of gradation or nuance -- this perspective can't admit that there is a qualitative difference in abstract reasoning between engineers and philosophy, while still allowing that both receive an education in it.