Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Whats the most important arts/humanities subject watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    See, I am a scientist. And of course I agree with you that historically, philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Historically, it was very important, and I would even agree with "most important". But today, I can honestly say that I have never knowingly used philosophy in the lab, or when writing a paper. Sure, I use processes that historically developed out of philosophy and then were incorporated into science - like heuristic techniques, the distinction between observation and interpretation, correlation and causation, and so on - but today these processes are an integral part of science. Most scientists don't study philosophy any more. Many scientists probably don't even know how their discipline grew out of philosophy. It is not really relevant to their daily life.
    There certainly is a lot of ignorance amound scientists.

    What you describe is not desirable imo. It's what happens when we all get regimented into focused little drones only focusing on our little sphere of life. We are not encouraged to think.

    You also get this subject divide within physics... Theoretical and mathematical physicists will look down on experiential physicists, who look down on borderline engineers/scientists in industries and so on.

    Also people like me are only at university due to the industrial revolution and my only purpose is to be a technician/engineer in the cogs of industrial capitalism. Why teach machinery philosophy? As long as said machine can do the maths that's all that matters. I would argue that the political economy shapes university education for a loads of people. somethingbeautiful would probably agree with me


    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    Not just historically; scientists apply philosophy of science every time they run an experiment, or analyse results. You're right that the every day scientist in the lab probably doesn't have a deep understanding of and/or study of philosophy - they just follow the rules - and that's a real shame I think.Either way they're still learning the philosophy at some point.
    I agree with you here.

    They should teach the philosophy behind science as part of people's science education imo.
    Offline

    21
    Geography.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    If that's the case and there is no line, then how can we rank one as more important than another?
    Good question ^

    On one hand it comes down into personal interpretation of what is most important to that individual.

    On the other hand it comes down into the that in present day, physic with all its applications could be considered more important to the society than modern philosophical issues. Disclamier: I am aware that physics was once part of philosophy, but now I am speaking about what they are today. What people who study physics and people who study philosophy study and research.

    I am sure one could make an argument for philosophy too, this is just my view.

    Before there is quantitive method of measuring importance of disclinipe this question cannot be answered. Alas, its interesting to debate.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    OP hasn't said much....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    You seem like you're making the rather terrible assumption that the present way of science is optimal for achieving all of our human ends. Why on Earth would one think that? And the only way to see what alternatives are better (other ways of doing science or other epistemic tools than science) is to do philosophy. That's why it is so useful - it's necessary for progression.
    No, actually. I do think, however, that science is now so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field (from a specialist) than from without (from a non-specialist, i.e. philosopher). Scientists can think too, you know.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    No, actually. I do think, however, that science is now so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field (from a specialist) than from without (from a non-specialist, i.e. philosopher). Scientists can think too, you know.
    And when they are doing that "thinking" they are doing philosophy! Most people who do philosophy of science these days have both a great grasp of science AND a great grasp of philosophy. It's funny because whenever an influential philosopher of science says something useful - and thereby that guy happens to know a little bit of science - the STEM-bros claim him as a "scientist" precisely because he helped understand science... It's all very tautological...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Geography gives you a good understanding of the world and how it's formed. It's not all just flags and countries.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by llys)
    No, actually. I do think, however, that science is now so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field (from a specialist) than from without (from a non-specialist, i.e. philosopher). Scientists can think too, you know.
    Er, Bertrand Russell, amongst many others.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    . Basically, I think that most of the things that Philosophy "is about" are not really important, therefore it is not the most important subject, that's it.
    But trying to say that philosophy is important only where it relates to the methodology and understanding of other subjects is a line drawing exercise that is not realistically tenable.

    Take, for example, Quentin Skinner's famous philo-history paper 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.' Skinner is making claims about (historical) methodology, but also claims about epistemology (knowledge and when/what type of knowledge is reliable), metaphysics, philosophy of language, logic and phenomenology.

    Epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind (which is related to phenomenology) are considered the 'big' areas of philosophy, but are also considered by people to be the most 'useless' or unimportant. Yet, a paper on history and its relation to philosophy relies on all of these areas.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Er, Bertrand Russell, amongst many others.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And he was born almost 150 years ago. When he was born, molecular biology (to name just one example) didn't even exist yet.

    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    And when they are doing that "thinking" they are doing philosophy! Most people who do philosophy of science these days have both a great grasp of science AND a great grasp of philosophy. It's funny because whenever an influential philosopher of science says something useful - and thereby that guy happens to know a little bit of science - the STEM-bros claim him as a "scientist" precisely because he helped understand science... It's all very tautological...
    So basically, "if it thinks, it is doing philosophy" ? You should discuss your meta-philosophy with NYU2012.
    Nah, I agree though that training in both would be excellent.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by llys)
    See, IMO, today, that is just "doing science".
    In which case science IS philosophy? :beard:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    In which case science IS philosophy? :beard:
    I don't know about that. This thread though is certainly very philosophical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    From philosophy did science emerge, and as Daniel Denett says there's no such thing as philosophy-free science.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...3#post59507363 (second / third part of this post)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    You succinct and concise clarity of thought and meaning is precisely the purpose of analytic philosophy and it has been the cause of a massive debate about language within philosophy for the last 100 or so years. Analytic philosophers love objective, clear cut, simple to understand, answers that you hard in the face. Not wishy-washy rubbish that can be interpreted 16 different ways and is essentially meaningless - that would be continental philosophy...

    You may very well enjoy analytic philosophy. I would recommend looking into it :P
    I repeat myself: "I think it's interesting that you think that effective and valuable communication is only that which is perfectly accurate, and that interpretation is therefore irrelevant and obsolete. Surely secondary meanings and the potential for multiple interpretations not only enriches the primary or intended meaning of a piece of literature or art, but also makes it more accessible, allowing greater and deeper interaction from the public?"
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by llys)
    And he was born almost 150 years ago. When he was born, molecular biology (to name just one example) didn't even exist yet.
    Same era as Einstein. But yeah irrelevant to "modern" science. (For the avoidance of doubt - that was an ironic statement.)

    He only died in 1970. Not *that* long ago... and inspired Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins who - checks - are still alive and "relevant".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    It's a Bsc if the course is mathematical and a BA if it's not so mathematical. But it's still majorly considered a humanity subject. Unfortunately there isn't an "in-between".
    It's voodoo science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    I repeat myself: "I think it's interesting that you think that effective and valuable communication is only that which is perfectly accurate, and that interpretation is therefore irrelevant and obsolete. Surely secondary meanings and the potential for multiple interpretations not only enriches the primary or intended meaning of a piece of literature or art, but also makes it more accessible, allowing greater and deeper interaction from the public?"
    That's a lot of huff and puff. A very long winded way of basically saying "it depends how you look at it" or "different people see things in different ways"

    Still, why use 7 words when 70 will do?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's a lot of huff and puff. A very long winded way of basically saying "it depends how you look at it" or "different people see things in different ways"

    Still, why use 7 words when 70 will do?
    that's not what I was saying at all?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    that's not what I was saying at all?
    Well, God knows what you're on about then.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Trick question- None of them are important
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.