4 ms·
That is giving way too much credit to liberal arts. In theory they might be good, but in practice there is nothing to connect it to reality (if you are a shitty
by tomjen3 4y ago
That is giving way too much credit to liberal arts. In theory they might be good, but in practice there is nothing to connect it to reality (if you are a shitty philosopher, you can make your self sound effective; if you are a shitty mathematician, others will point out that your proofs do not work).
If you want me to take the liberal arts seriously, you're going to have to show how they can be held to the same kind of standard that we hold, say, physics to.
Worse, you also simultaneously managed to insult half your audience. I attended a CS only university. I did not have one hour of history class. Not one hour was spent on anthropology, physics or language study except as necessary for our compiler classes.
If you cut out the lesser useful classes, such as anything having to do with user interface design, then maybe you could've gotten a year out of it. That will still have taken me four years, to get that CS degree.
- yusefnapora 4y agoI'm so confused at how you managed to be insulted by the parent comment. Someone else finding value in liberal arts education is not an attack on those that don't.
- snapplebobapple 4y agophysics has its own class of problems in that theoretical physics can spout any nonsense it wants as long as the testing to verify if it is correct or not is suitably expensive as to ensure it doesn't happen and the math is reasonably complex. it's not on the same scale of rampant bullshitism that is going on in the arts programs, where thousands of people have made entire careers out of generalizing marxism from the domain of labor to all the other domains of social interaction, physicists would have gotten that done in a flurry of papers over two weeks and moved on to something else more abstract and difficult to verify level of truth.