Lord Browne, don't you think abandoning the Arts & Humanities is short sighted?

It isn't, paying for it is! This is a spending review we're talking about, of cause economics is going to play a large part in this. The reality is, when there isn't enough money to go around, what is necessary is prioritised over what is desirable. Science is necessary, Arts isn't. It is as simple as that. If Arts were abolished, the country would be far better at coping than if Sciences were abolished. Does this mean that arts are useless, no, but it does mean that they are lower down the pecking order than sciences.

As for your comment about the arts being a huge industry in this country, so what! Don't you understand that in a recession, the nation needs to sell products outside its borders! Do you really think people are going to pay billions of pounds for the writings of 21 century philosophers? Do you really think the general public even care?! Or do they want the latest mobile phone or the car that drives itself? Do you really think whole governments care? Or do they want the next energy resource that will produce more electricity for less cost, or act as a military deterrent.

From a purely Economic stand point, arts and humanities are of little value. The two largest areas of global economic investment are Energy and Technology and both are rooted exclusively in Science.

The argument is that Arts and Humanities teach people 'how to think' but in large parts, this is the job of Schools! not Universities. The fact that Universities have had to take on this responsibility is in large part due to failings of our secondary tier of education, thankfully this is largely being rectified as greater understanding on teaching and learning has developed rapidly over the past 5 years. Schools are now finally starting to teach students how to think. An example of this is the change in 2006 of the national curriculum in science. Thus Arts and Humanities role as a progressive for society is largely redundant whilst from an economic standpoint it is inconsequential thus of all disciplines Arts and Humanities shouldn't be prioritised.

I reject the statement that 'abandoning the Arts & Humanities is short sighted' it is simply progression, in fact one could call it natural selection.

What has arts ever done for the UK? I mean, Shakespeare, Elgar, et cetera, creative minds that they were did a lot for this country, but they were good enough to make money so that the taxpayer didn't need to pay.

Example: Tracy Emin! Now I'm not saying that the taxpayer paid for him, but I certainly wouldn't support it if we were asked to give taskpayers money for him to have "an unmade bed"!!??

Aherm... Would you explain to me the meaning of sustainable development - a booming economic sector if i am not wrong and clearly related to energy and technology.
I don't think it means just economically sustainable, but also socially sustainable. This is why in many northern european countries they are producing courses such as social architecture. Energy, technology, and both natural and social environment should be studied TOGETHER.
I just wish people like you AND the government would realize the link between technology, progress and social sciences. They are not called sciences for nothing, and i think unless we aim for socially viable progress, we are heading to our doom, both economically AND socially.

The governement does not need to cut this hard or this fast. It is purely idealogical.

What do you mean science is necessary, necessary for what? necessary for the economy, for the capitalist system. For the bettering of humanity i beleive that the arts and humanities are equally as necessary. What would the world be like without great writers or great films? with humanities we can study our own society and find ways to improve it think critically about it and thus we find issues that perhaps we can use technology and science to help solve but you also need to know how society works to be able to give a scientific solution. The knowledge that is created in the arts and humanities has direct impacts on the sciences and all walks of life. Shall we stop researching ways to help develop those countries less fortunate?

If we take the economic argument i am basically saying that if you invest £1 in the arts/ humanities you get over double the return. So if you put in £1 you get £2 as an example. Why would you cut something that is doubling your investment, it doesn't make sense. They are making money for the British economy. Tourism for example a huge industr, much of this tourism is based upon the incredible wealth of art that we create and produce in this country - theatre etc.

And what's with all this rubbishing of philosophy? Doesn't it seem absurd to be studying the subshells of an atom without having a fair idea of whether or not one exists? That's what philosophy's for, and it's utterly imperative.

But when was the last time you saw someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysics running a country? Managing a corporation? Writing excellent songs?

If an assumption (based on great amounts of evidence, of course) had NOT been made by physicists then I very much doubt you would have been able to type this ridiculous tirade. […]

I would argue that you don't see scientists/engineers running the country because they have been absorbed into their respective industries - that is why they are so important! They are doing the jobs which create steady income and growth for the country.

I would also argue that a greater number of top level managers and business leaders have scientific backgrounds. I certainly know the figures for engineers are very good

And the last point is moot - apart from our famous curly-haired alumnus, I can't think of many songwriters with a phd of either persuasion.

We're not. If students choose to study these courses, then the Government will provide the up-front funding for it. If it is strategically important, then it will receive additional funding.

Your understanding of science is woeful. Up until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there was no such thing as 'science'. Men who practised natural science also engaged in other fields – Lomonosov was an astronomer, established a university in Moscow, wrote poetry, and changed the Russian language forever – because they understood the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge.

Nevertheless, absolutely everything science has achieved so far has its basis in the philosophical platform established by the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular. Science (as you understand it) has made next to no difference in the context of history; genetics is probably the only field that comes close to being independent of the Greeks, and that is only because I cannot think off an example of the top of my head.

If you do not know what you are talking about then it is better to keep quiet.

Then you aren't well read.

Well, look at you. You try to say I'm thinker and that I'm a philosopher, however you know nothing about the universe. All you know is language, that's all philosophy is now, the study of language.

Richard Feynman comes to my mind.

You are rite in the sense that sceince has made large benifits to society as a hole.

has science not created large amounts of polution and caused mass distruction. they both have equal benifit in society a scentist without philosopy or critical thinking is a mad scentist.

Astronomy is a science. A lot of people study many things, in the old day it was easier to do great work in a lot of things.

Not really. Again, Science is developed from practical needs aswell. If there was not no greeks we would still have algebra or gun powered e.t.c.

Philosophy didn't give birth to science. That is wrong.

Take for instance Mathematics, that had nothing to do with philosophy or greeks, yet now the language of science is mathematics. So even in a sense philosophy isn't needed anymore, maths is a better basis of science. Even in biology in a few years time that would be mathematical biology.

The point is that philosophy is dead. It shouldn't be funded any more it's useless.

That's more of a flaw in humans, then science. Without science the world wouldn't be a better place. You need to break a few omelets to make an egg.

Actually, philosopher or critical thinkers don't stop mad scientist. Again, morales come from genetics not thoughts. We have altruism and all that stuff program into are genes. We don't need philosophy to stop mad people, you need a psychologist.

That's more of a flaw in humans, then science. Without science the world wouldn't be a better place. You need to break a few omelets to make an egg.

Actually, philosopher or critical thinkers don't stop mad scientist. Again, morales come from genetics not thoughts. We have altruism and all that stuff program into are genes. We don't need philosophy to stop mad people, you need a psychologist.

If an assumption (based on great amounts of evidence, of course) had NOT been made by physicists then I very much doubt you would have been able to type this ridiculous tirade.



I would argue that you don't see scientists/engineers running the country because they have been absorbed into their respective industries - that is why they are so important! They are doing the jobs which create steady income and growth for the country.

I would also argue that a greater number of top level managers and business leaders have scientific backgrounds. I certainly know the figures for engineers are very good

And the last point is moot - apart from our famous curly-haired alumnus, I can't think of many songwriters with a phd of either persuasion.

That's more of a flaw in humans, then science. Without science the world wouldn't be a better place. You need to break a few omelets to make an egg.

Actually, philosopher or critical thinkers don't stop mad scientist. Again, morales come from genetics not thoughts. We have altruism and all that stuff program into are genes. We don't need philosophy to stop mad people, you need a psychologist.

Well we obviously need humanities like English in either/both of its forms to make sure people can spell properly.

Well we obviously need humanities like English in either/both of its forms to make sure people can spell properly.