Like why should I trust anything you say about how things will work out politically if you refuse to read books about the political history of the systems you’re interacting with
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Because we're swept up in a culture that views science as sorcery comprehensible only to genius ubermensch
Having opinions is easy, understanding Hubble's Law is hard. The problem is few people put in the leg work to craft nuanced opinions and assume scientific acumen is a satisfactory substitute
I have had to add some specifically historical slides to my chemistry lectures because it became obvious that if I didn't tell them about e.g. Haber and WW1, nobody else had or would.
I learned about Haber and the Haber-Bosch process in secondary school (equivalent to high school in the US) in the 1960s. No one mentioned gas warfare or Zyklon B. At all
ah yes the old "he was so engrossed in rocket making that he didn't notice the gallows in the assembly line of the rocket factory he was technical director off & it never occurred to him that the funny smell was because they had a policy of not taking the corpses down until the next hanging" excuse
and he was a war criminal because the 2nd part of the Nurenberg judgement that anyone who was a remember of the SS after 1st September 1939 who wasn't (a) conscripted into the Waffen SS or (b) a member of the German Pony club was a war criminal
He joined in 36 or 37 and remained a member til 45
Tom Lehrer had something to say about that way back in the 1960s:
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Vonce rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down?
Zat's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun
I mean, if you go to the Holocaust Museum in DC, there's a whole wall timeline of all the laws designed to curtail freedom, end public life, and ultimately kill the enemies of the state.
I'd say every scientist should be dragged there, but scientists are often invested in the "we were the good guys in WWII" narrative, as though every scientist opposed the Nazis, there were no collaborators or America Firsters, or scientists who committed war crimes in some capacity.
I say that as someone who took almost no electives but also as someone who actively sought out a liberal arts college education because I thought being a well-rounded intellectual was important for a scientist
And it has served me as a scientist and citizen and human, over and over and over
I recently read your article “Becoming Martian” and nearly cried at the beauty of your writing. The breadth of understanding was stunning, and I wish I knew of other scientists (in any field) writing the way you do. That’s how I want to learn about the world (and beyond)!
I didn’t go to a liberal arts school on purpose (I just liked the campus visit), but having been at state schools in a number of capacities since, it was SO GOOD for me on so many levels. Gen eds are essential, contrary to what so many students think.
If you spurn the humanities as a scientist, that takes you down the dangerous road to pathological science and pseudoscience as a best case scenario. Like, how do you know where you're going if you don't understand the path you're on?
And it goes both ways. I took Discovering Physics for my science perspective and it was one of my favorite classes. It laid the foundation for my systems analysis and helps me push back on "we should just teach kids to balance their checkbooks" attacks on k-12 math.
So true! I took the minimum electives because engineering classes needed all of my attention. But I have been a lifelong voracious reader. Without that, I would be a real dumbass.
Anyone who is reading this thread as me saying that historians never did a fuckshit, I think you should work on your reading comprehension (also a skill a liberal arts approach to knowledge can help you hone) lol
I would note that (partly thanks to you) my thinking on this stuff has moved. I would now posit that the reason a lot of STEM people (and humanities folks with STEM envy) deride humanities type thinking is the idea that you have to be exceptionally smart to do math, but not history./1
And in that regard - granted its just my experience with people I knew/speak with - there’s this idea that humanities are “easier” but that is only because at lower undergrad and high school levels a person who is good at mathematical logic can skate through. *However* - /2
Once you pass that the situation changes a lot, for the same reason that many kids who are prodigies in their little pond get a rude awakening when they go to college (for sure I got that!) /3
This is so important and so ingrained in the sub-culture of physical sciences that in my case during my BSc in Physics there wasn't a single 1st year PHIL course without prerequisites I could take. Finally found philosophy of technology & society that Engineering students had to take .... 1/2
... they couldn't believe I was taking their most universally despised required course on purpose. Probably the single most valuable course of my career though. Also all advisors scratched their heads at me taking Persuasive Essay Writing over technical writing but the former was so useful! 2/2
Comments
Which is the most extreme form of self-loathing and alienation I can imagine.
Having opinions is easy, understanding Hubble's Law is hard. The problem is few people put in the leg work to craft nuanced opinions and assume scientific acumen is a satisfactory substitute
He joined in 36 or 37 and remained a member til 45
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Vonce rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down?
Zat's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun
Not liking facts is such a weird position for a scientist but you know, we know how common that is
😹😭
me further regret the high and mighty attitude I had as an undergrad science guy.
We need the humanities more than ever. Or at least at a bare minimum an ethics class in CS programs (my Alma mater didn’t have one)
And it has served me as a scientist and citizen and human, over and over and over