Comment Re:Humanities can't explain the need for humanitie (Score 1) 564
I think it lacks a bit of openness and empathy to claim that they '[they] have done a poor job of explaining why they are necessary'.
If you read any book of Dan Ariely (or even more profound, Daniel Kahneman), you could discover that we often act in very irrational ways, which also influences us in our everyday live, which does not exclude engineering work or scientific research (e.g. read the example of Kahneman, where he explains how he changed his way of going through exam papers).
Furthermore, it has a direct link to neuroscientists like David Eaglemen, which shed(s) light on similar issues from a different ( 'scientific') perspective.
There are many more examples from philosophy, economics, etc which could potentially (re)form the world view of any one of us (IMHO especially rational thinking engineers/scientists).
It is very well possible that they have done a poor job to convince you of their necessity. Regarding me, they have done an exceptional job.
If you read any book of Dan Ariely (or even more profound, Daniel Kahneman), you could discover that we often act in very irrational ways, which also influences us in our everyday live, which does not exclude engineering work or scientific research (e.g. read the example of Kahneman, where he explains how he changed his way of going through exam papers).
Furthermore, it has a direct link to neuroscientists like David Eaglemen, which shed(s) light on similar issues from a different ( 'scientific') perspective.
There are many more examples from philosophy, economics, etc which could potentially (re)form the world view of any one of us (IMHO especially rational thinking engineers/scientists).
It is very well possible that they have done a poor job to convince you of their necessity. Regarding me, they have done an exceptional job.
