Well, as someone in the humanities... (Score 1)

I personally am a student in the humanities (medieval history of the church to be exact), and yes, I'll admit there are flaws to knowing only them: Engineering and science courses provide an insight into the world that cannot be obtained otherwise. They've taught me about genetics, how to build a computer, how batteries work, how to decipher an electrical schematic diagram... I wouldn't give those experiences back for anything. It lets me appreciate the work Phil Plait does on his blog or the efforts of Neil DeGrasse Tyson to educate the people. I wouldn't be able to understand the jokes within SMBC or XKCD without them. I grew up watching Bill Nye and loving every second of it. Hell, I've been following Slashdot for over ten years since I was in elementary school because it continues to fascinate me.

But not as much as medieval history fascinated me. I knew from middle school that my dream was to become a professor in that field: I preferred Steven Runciman and St. Augustine of Hippo over my brother's O'Reilly books. I've been working hard each day learning Latin, ancient Greek, French, German, and Old English to be able to read the texts that are pertinent to my field. Admittedly I don't have to work out the stress in the joists like a structural engineer, or figure out why this code isn't producing the right results, or decide what's the best method to administer medicine. I have to look at the evidence given to me (textual, archaeological, linguistic) and come to my own conclusions about what happened over a millennium ago and why. Can anyone really prove me wrong? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You can back up your opinions, but many times there isn't enough evidence besides giving your impression. Occasionally we have a discovery like Sutton Hoo or Nag Hammadi that give a complete paradigm shift, but that's about it. It's never a slam dunk like in 1919 when Arthur Eddington helped Einstein overturn Newton for good.

But that doesn't mean the humanities and its pursuit are useless.

I'll be honest with you: I hate literature and art history. They were as boring to me as mathematics, and it's a struggle to stay awake in all of them. But I've never thought of any of them as lesser than the other. Mathematics, even those that seem useless at the time, ultimately help in endless fields: When imaginary numbers appeared on the scene, they only solved certain formulas and that was about it. "Imaginary" was coined by Descartes in a derogatory fashion. And look now at the practical applications. Literature provides our society with culture and can be an actual impetus for change: Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" against McCarthy or Dickens' "Bleak House" against the British judiciary system. Can you imagine a society without Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, or Orwell? Whether you like it or not, they've helped define our vocabulary and views about humanity and society. Art history explores human expression, whether it's my favorite period of the baroque, or the symbolism within the Renaissance, or even something as ridiculous as Dadaism. That's the stepping stones that we've built on to create our world today. Even if you haven't studied them, the influence is there.

I can say as a historian and someone who is deeply involved with Christianity, I really wish people studied those more. People's ignorance is overwhelming and frustrating. Politicians screw around my field just as much as they do with science. Recently we mocked Sarah Palin and her misinterpretation of Paul Revere's ride, but for someone like me I spot problems with politicians' words every day. I can't tell you how much I want to punch someone in the face when they say, "The Founding Fathers would [agree and support with whatever I have to say]." And as someone who doesn't specialize in American history, I can say Americans' knowledge about world history is just appalling. If people learned about it more, maybe they'd have more insight about why certain portions of the Middle East hate one another. Or why the Koreans and Japanese hate each others' guts. How many Americans knew about Chechnya and their beef with Russia after the Boston bombings? How many can explain the controversies in the foundation of Israel and the subsequent entanglements in the 1948 War or the Six-Day War? Let me tell you: The Middle East hasn't forgotten, and when we talk about Israeli settlements or the returning of the Gaza Strip, history can explain that.

Part of me doesn't even want to start a discussion about Christianity because there's so much vitriol out there. Personally I'm an agnostic, but I don't hate the religion nor do I hate believers. Yes, it's been used as a weapon and still is, but it's also served as a support for and saved countless people. The West is without question deeply entrenched in Christianity. It's shaped our views, our laws, and our culture. I remember back in 2009, there were many complaints from conservatives that when Obama went to the Middle East, he said we were not a Christian nation. He's right: We don't have a national religion. (Yeah, okay, we have "In God We Trust" on the money and say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, but that's really just superficial in comparison to an actual theocratic state. I'd prefer them not to be there, but it's not something I'd going to get angry about.) But in a way, the conservatives are right: You cannot deny our Christian history. It's why we don't allow polygamy. It's why we have orphanages. It's why we think infanticide is repulsive. It's why we try to protect non combatants. Believe it or not, it actually raised the status of women in ancient culture. And today, even if you're not religious, it affects the talk and mindset about abortions and euthanasia, even if it's just the vocabulary.

I'm used to the type of dismissive statements I saw earlier in the thread: I've been a disappointment to my brother, a computer scientist, and he's been very vocal about it. Some of the comments here are true: There are professors out there who will fail you unless you have the same opinion as them. I can actually pinpoint my dislike of literature to a single middle school teacher who had opinions I found ridiculous and was subsequently penalized for that. And you know what? That's a bad teacher and I pity you if you got one of those. But I can say as someone in the field, there are wonderful people out there who not only accept dissent but welcome them. I'll give an (admittedly anecdotal) example I'm certain few of you will care about: In academia, Richard Strongbow is often considered the beginner of English aggression against the Irish. I've studied in Ireland, and they hate that man. However, in one of my classes there, a student pointed out in a paper that Strongbow wasn't given emphasis in the earliest sources, so this focus on him is probably just by later historians. Our professor was amazed by this because it goes against everything in every textbook, and the two of them are working on a paper together about it.

Is that knowledge pretty useless? Maybe? Is it any more useless than researching the Big Bang? Or that the matinee and elephant are closely related? Or why did the neanderthals ultimately die out? There's certainly a use to all of these, just in different ways. We can't recreate the Big Bang. I can't think of any practical use for knowing about the evolutionary closeness between those two species other than it's interesting to know (although I'll welcome anyone who proves me wrong). Even if we genetically engineer a Neanderthal, it's not going to change creationists' minds because it doesn't really counter their argument.* But it's nice to have curiosity about them. Why can't we have that same curiosity about the foundation of society? Of religion? Are they not just as pertinent to our current situation?

Think of it this way: We've spent billions of dollars sending missions to Mars, and many of them have failed. (Most upsetting is Mars Climate Orbiter because apparently NASA wasn't using the metric system for its thrust equations. ...Really?) Other than being really cool and awesome, what purpose does this provide? Well, it opens the door for a manned mission. Okay, and then what? It's still really difficult and expensive to get people to the moon, which is why we haven't sent any more: Society doesn't think there's a use for it. I personally think it's useful because it opens up scientific inquiry, helps progress engineering, and maybe possibly we'll have further space exploration. Hey, you don't know if you don't try. But then again, it's billions of dollars and for the short-term goals there are very few returns, especially when you think how that money could've been spent building roads, educating our kids, or even constructing warheads if you're into that.

I'm not saying historians can't cause damage either. The people Hitler surrounded himself with didn't help. Nor did people expounding the reasoning behind black slavery. Nor the extremists in the Middle East who have a very narrow view. I'm just trying to say the sciences and humanities both have their benefits and flaws, and neither should diminish the other. I'm saddened by today's stark division between the two; we need more people like Aristotle and Goethe who not only had an appreciation for but also advanced both fields.

To those who say the humanities are useless, even if you say they only teach orthodoxy, even if you think they don't fulfill their potential, even if you say they aren't subversive, even if you think logic is better taught in the sciences than in philosophy, I'll argue this: Ignorance of the humanities makes you just as narrow-minded as the politicians you bash, as uneducated as the people you face while you work in tech support, as unlearned as the people who don't appreciate open source or even know what it is. Even if you disagree with someone, it's better to know their side. I've won arguments about Christianity because I've studied the Bible and theological history thoroughly and my opponent (someone gay bashing) didn't know large portions of it.

Is this a nod to the core curriculum? Perhaps. I'm on the fence because I don't think the introductory classes are enough to give anyone a real solid grounding, but at least it opens you up to the possibilities. As I mentioned above, I hated every second of those math, art history, and literature classes, but I don't regret them. I worked hard, acquired my knowledge, and did well. I'm not really using math much today, just as I'm not using those piano and flute lessons my parents sent me to for ten years, but it gives me greater understanding as a human being, even if I'm skeptical of what I've been taught. Still, I'm not certain forcing people to do it opens up appreciation. Well, that's an argument for another day. I shouldn't get too much into it.

I'll end on Huxley's "A Brave New World:" That's a place without any culture or history. You can argue whether it's a dystopia or not, but for me it's rather horrifying. For me it's not about the lack of human suffering, but rather the closed minds; anyone like Helmholtz is banished to an island far away so they can't affect the general populace. To me, that's a world where science flourishes and the humanities collapse. I used that as an example against my brother once but he hadn't read it or head of it, which I think is a pity for him. I read that in one of my despised literature courses. (Also, someone above mentioned Socates/Plato's "Apology," which I heartily recommend. Reading that for a philosophy class changed me forever as a person.)

My apologies, this was really rambling and not very well organized because I just poured my thoughts out as they came to mind. And sorry, I noticed I centered a lot on astronomy, but it was at the forefront of my brain because it's one of my favorite fields. For the tl;dr: Humanities has its benefits too. Perhaps they're not taught well at times, but you belittling it to me makes you sound exactly like someone disparaging scientific efforts and proofs.

* I know this statement is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, so I want to explain myself a bit: Yes, I agree that we can demonstrate the world wasn't created in seven days. However, they'll probably riposte the Neanderthals died in the flood, much like the argument with dinosaurs. Even if you use something like carbon dating, they can say God created the world to make it seem like it's older than about 6000 years, which honestly you can't really dispute. I genuinely think they're wrong, but really, how can we know? It's certainly possible. I'll still stick with something we can point to as evidence.