lewelma Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I "gave up" attempting to challenge in this area. Instead, I'm focusing more on engagement and making sure he gets challenged in other areas. Fwiw, IMHO, learning doesn't have to mean difficult or challenging. It can mean stimulating and passion. There was never "challenging" in the humanities, she just "got it", is a natural writer, never had trouble inferring and synthesizing and coming up with connections and writing very well about it all. The only thing I have ever found that made something challenging is sheer work load. I didn't want to derail the previous thread, but I don't get it. Are we saying that STEM is just harder? Really? In my experience even a profoundly gifted math student can still be challenged to the point of tears over days and even weeks; but I'm hearing that for the gifted humanities student, it is just about passion and stimulation? WOW! *Why* is this? What does this mean philosophically? Right now, I think I pulled the short straw. I get tears and you get engagement. Ruth in NZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebunny Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm glad you brought this question up. I was/am getting the impression on these boards, that Humanities is somehow...inferior (maybe not the right word?) to STEM. I do not have a STEM background but I moved from STEM (Math, Chemistry) to Economics/Finance in my Bachelors. I found Economics/Finance to be as challenging, if not more, than Math at the Undergrad level. (Math inclusive of Calculus) Right now, I'm struggling with Sociology because of my inherent STEM mindset. I'm so used to objectivity and found the subjectivity in Humanities (Sociology, History and Psychology) very challenging. It will be awesome if someone from the Humanities shares their perspective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 My husband is currently getting a PhD in the humanities and he is busting his butt! It is hard. Really really hard. Very philosophical, lots of hermeneutics and epistemology. He has to synthesize 1000 (yes 1000) references. I guess the question is how do you reduce this to the high school level, but keep the challenge, which is what the other thread was asking. So why can we do this for STEM kids but not for humanities kids? Does it have to do with maturity? or perhaps that math has a right answer and humanities is about expressing your *own* opinion/synthesis so you can never be pushed beyond what you are capable of? Or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebunny Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 FTR, I am studying Sociology & Philosophy (Graduate level) and find it very very meaningful. For instance, the (Weberian) concept of 'Verstehen'..made me question some of my beliefs and opinions. But, I wonder how, the abstract and complex ideas in humanities, could be included in schools as a part of the curriculum without diluting or dumbing the concepts down. ETA: we posted at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think it depends on what you do in the Humanities. As I mentioned on the other thread, translating English to Latin orally was a real test for Calvin. And how about writing poetry to strict metre? There are so many aspects of the Humanities that can be intricate and hard. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alef Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 The difference I see is the lack of solid answers in the humanities. In math, there are right and wrong answers, you either find/prove a correct solution or you don't, the goal is generally clear and the sweat and tears come from trying to achieve that goal. In humanities, there may be no clearly defined goal to strive for, no way of easily identifying success. And yet--there is so very much room for striving and excellence. I took a graduate seminar from a celebrated Welsh poet, and one thing I learned is that the time and thought and effort put into crafting and revising a good poem was as mentally taxing as any work I had ever done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanikit Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think this is a problem - STEM subjects are just as much about language as the humanities are - in school this appears to be less the case - but it shouldn't be. Science is actually very much about opinions and beliefs just as the humanities are - everything is based in science on a presumption that certain laws exist and must exist and have always existed - no one questions these beliefs in science - they question them in the humanities however - and yet the entire philosophy of the STEM subjects rests on these beliefs. Is it easier to presume something and take it as fact or is it easier to question those beliefs? I think the humanities are very challenging and we owe it to our children to challenge them in the humanities too. Why do we need right and wrong so badly - we live in a very comparative world - we want to know what is better and what is worse, which is of more quality and which is of less quality - what defines quality is part of the humanities, what determines worth is also part of the humanities. It is the ability to deal with these things that will determine how successful a person in a STEM career will be - we need to ask why we are doing something and how it can be done better, not just whether it is right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think this is a problem - STEM subjects are just as much about language as the humanities are - in school this appears to be less the case - but it shouldn't be. Science is actually very much about opinions and beliefs just as the humanities are - everything is based in science on a presumption that certain laws exist and must exist and have always existed - no one questions these beliefs in science - they question them in the humanities however - and yet the entire philosophy of the STEM subjects rests on these beliefs. I have three grad degrees in "humanities" and, really, the research process for humanities and science aren't all that different. Gather a lot of knowledge, make a theory, try to prove it, present what you did to others, and then sit in a corner and cry while everyone else tears apart most or all of it. :lol: I am very frustrated by those who think that humanities subjects are simply opinions or subjective. If your research is merely opinions or subjective, you are doing it wrong, and will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Established scholars who pad their income by publishing their opinions in popular-audience books is another subject). But my frustration is tempered by the reaction I see to most health-science news. Every time a news article runs about "such-and-such is good for you" or "such-and-such is bad for you" the comments section is full of people spouting lines like "they used to say this was good for you!" "scientists are always changing their minds!" "what's the point of nutrition research anymore!" I know what is going on behind the are-eggs-good-for-you debate - a theory was raised which is still being investigated and refined. Fine. But this fact seems to be lost on the general population. There seems to be something missing in the schooling of these people, not sure what to call it (haven't drank second cup of coffee yet), knowledge of research-process? investigative inquiry? They just don't know how we acquire new knowledge. And if they can't understand that when it comes to subjects based on the ability to run repeated tests, then they certainly won't be able to understand it in subjects based on interpreting arcane artifacts. The answer is not the anti-gnostic trend I see growing in America (the "who cares what research says, I'll just do/think/feel what I think is good" mentality). Rather, we need to impress on students that there is always research to be done, in every subject, and every subject has developed good ways of acquiring new information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think it is all relative in how you view it. For example, my ds finds math and physics problems stimulating. He may have to work hrs on them, but he loves the mental stimulation. Other people (me included) would describe what he is doing as difficult and seriously challenging. I am not sure his POV and mine intersect all that much. When I work with my dd, she loves it. She finds what we spend time doing just as equally stimulating as ds finds math and physics. Me.....I wouldn't have voluntarily read the translation of beowulf she chose. Nor would I have spent days reading nitty gritty line by line analysis of the Fall of Arthur compared to Morte d'Arthur vs. Morte Arthure. (Seriously, who wants to read this stuff?? Apparently, my dd.;) ) Again, her POV and mine are not one and the same. I do not expect my dd to do the same level of intensity in math as ds bc he thrives in it and she simply tolerates it. Why? Bc I sincerely don't believe it is necessary. Nor would I expect ds to spend the time doing what dd is doing with her lit studies. It is driven by her passion for poetry and love of language. He certainly does not need to spend time doing this. (Very few people do. I think in her own way, dd is developing her own version of a graduate level lit study as would be created by a 15 yr old at home with no formal background on how it would actually be done.) Really......neither one of them "needs" to be approaching subjects the way they do. The vast majority of successful STEM majors have not done what ds has done at his age. Ditto to dd. It does not mean that the work is not "difficult" in the general sense of the word. (I find it very difficult and often am clueless.). But, like I wrote originally, learning does not have to mean difficult or challenging to the individual....it can simply mean stimulating and being driven by their passions. If things are only difficult and challenging and not bringing personal enjoyment out of it, I would suspect that long term it would not be something they would want to pursue on their own. Conversely, if it does, then spending additional time exploring beyond what they are expected to do for school becomes a hobby/interest that they develop into long term goals/plans (like careers ). Perhaps it is simply how we are defining the words, but it don't think so bc if I get tears, I assume I am approaching something incorrectly or more likely inappropriately for the level of my student. My goal is engagement. I don't want boredom but I don't want challenge that reduces to tears. I want challenge that is the invigorating kind. There is a distinct difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Hello everyone. I hope you don't mind my intruding on your conversation even if this is not a board where I do not belong. The topic just called out to me! Many people would assume that I am a STEM gal since I have a master's degree in Mathematics; but I am really a Humanities gal if you examine my academic interests. My studies in Mathematics focused on the theoretical. Yes, I can solve a differential system but when pressed on the physical interpretation, I will probably shrug my shoulders. The closest I came to applying mathematics to the real world was in a course on Operations Management (ghastly!) and in a course on Celestial Mechanics (which was quite lovely even if I did not immediately grasp the physics). Frankly I think that this culture's tendency to divide minds into types (Science or Humanities) does a great disservice. This is a modern conceit. Mathematics and Philosophy were sister disciplines. Today some role their eyes at the "uselessness" of a philosophy degree which is probably why I say that I had a "useless" education as well. My son, a Bright Lad but not one of the Exceptionals, was educated using TWTM principles with more theoretical mathematics than is common. His interest in history was always present. He read many Great Books in the course of high school. I don't think he has any particular facility with foreign languages although he did do four years of Latin in high school and five semesters of French. Despite these leanings towards the Humanities, he did AP Bio at home, took two semesters of chemistry at the CC as well as a Microbiology course. I guess what I am trying to say is that following a well rounded path with a curious mind is gratifying. Mathematics was not "easy" for me but pleasurably stimulating. Mathematics was not easy for my son but he always did well in it--not exceptionally well, mind you, but better than average. Yet he never saw the pleasure of a well crafted proof. He will be graduating with an archaeology degree in May, a degree that includes Humanities (his Classics and Art History courses) as well as Science (Geology courses, Archaeological Methods). The skills learned while writing a good geometric proof (and not just a fill in the blank two column type) are useful when writing an argument in a research paper. The detail needed when parsing grammar in Latin can be translated to the detail needed when analyzing lithics. May I suggest that one field is not necessarily "easier" than the other because everything has much in common at its core? My fear is that what enters these discussions are society's current values, i.e. STEM subjects are good and the Arts are a hobby. It just saddens me. Knowledge is knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Science is actually very much about opinions and beliefs just as the humanities are - everything is based in science on a presumption that certain laws exist and must exist and have always existed - no one questions these beliefs in science - they question them in the humanities however - and yet the entire philosophy of the STEM subjects rests on these beliefs. I am not sure I understand. The only thing scientists believe in is that phenomena have rational explanations and that humans can know. Scientists do not believe that certain laws exist; the experimental evidence agrees with the laws, and the laws make predictions that come true - thus the law will be accepted as a reasonable explanation within, and depending on, the parameters of a system. For example, laws that govern the behavior of macroscopic objects at small speeds may not be valid for microscopic particles or objects traveling at high speeds. Opinions have no place in science, unless they are substantiated by experimental or observational evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 The difference I see is the lack of solid answers in the humanities. In math, there are right and wrong answers, you either find/prove a correct solution or you don't, the goal is generally clear and the sweat and tears come from trying to achieve that goal. In humanities, there may be no clearly defined goal to strive for, no way of easily identifying success. And yet--there is so very much room for striving and excellence. I took a graduate seminar from a celebrated Welsh poet, and one thing I learned is that the time and thought and effort put into crafting and revising a good poem was as mentally taxing as any work I had ever done. I'd agree about the poetry, but disagree that there are no solid answers in Humanities. Translation is brilliant for that: yes, there will be different versions of 'right' for a translation, but there are also clear 'wrongs'. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I don't know for most children, but I can say that for mine, far more tears flow in the humanities than in STEM, and I do think it comes down to there not being a "right" answer all the time. I've seen DD reduced to tears over pieces of writing that were actually quite advanced and quite beautiful for her age/grade, because they didn't flow the way the words flow in Music of the Hemispheres or in Shakespeare. I've seen her get frustrated and completely shut down over history because the people hundreds of years ago didn't do it the way they should have and they are still making mistakes today and we haven't learned anything. She wants the cat to always be alive or dead-not in some in between state, and HATES "It depends". Give her Latin translations, logic puzzles, grammar, music theory, or even having to write a poem with a set structure, and she's a lot happier because she has a clear right and wrong. If she's supposed to use Iambic pentameter, she can clearly see if she's done it or not and can focus on the structure, not the content. It may be hard-but it's hard in the same way an AOPS problem is hard. And she can handle that kind of hard. Ultimately, I think, for her, it really is a maturity issue. She's still black and white, with no space for grey, no space for contrary opinions. And because of that, she's not able to have the reasoned, rational discussions and debates because she cannot conceive that two people can hold different opinions and that both may potentially be right. What I think is helping her with this more than anything else is spending more time with real scientists and reading scientific papers, and discovering that rather than there being one right answer (as science is often shown to children), there are constant revisions, changes and debates. Sometimes, you can't tell whether that's a spiny or smooth softshell turtle because the turtle is swimming away from you and you can't see the face. Some animals get moved from one genera to another repeatedly and have significant debate over where they belong (like whether Mammalia and Aves should more properly be classified under reptilia vs at the same level because reptiles came first evolutionarily). Sometimes you can't find a reason, but the frogs are still dead. Sometimes theories don't work as you expect (like discovering that sometimes, runoff from organic farms is more damaging to amphibian species than from non-organic farms, and that sometimes the pesticides used actually benefit the wild population). If in science, which is all about finding the facts, sometimes the facts can be subject to debate and are changed over time, it makes it easier for her to understand that maybe, just maybe, that's the case in other areas, too. I've also decided that one thing she needs in the humanities is time with other people who can provide contrary opinions, but with whom she feels safe disagreeing. That's where the online classes are really helping her. They're not the most challenging as far as the book selections, and the writing assignments are trivial, but she's learning that sometimes, there's more than one right or partially correct answer, and that being "right" doesn't mean that someone else is "wrong", and that's something she needs right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jar7709 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Frankly I think that this culture's tendency to divide minds into types (Science or Humanities) does a great disservice. This is a modern conceit. Mathematics and Philosophy were sister disciplines. Today some role their eyes at the "uselessness" of a philosophy degree which is probably why I say that I had a "useless" education as well. Agreed! This tendency annoys me a great deal. I have love and affinity for both...I have a B.A. (yes, B.A., not B.S.!) in two combined science subjects, a minor in a humanities subject, and an M.S. in a science, and 20 years later I work in a very interdisciplinary field that incorporates all those bona fides. I realize that this is probably unusual and that many people will indeed go more "purely" to one side of the other, but imo many on either side would greatly benefit from increased education into and respect for the other side. Anyway. At least one of my children also appears to straddle boundaries. DS is gifted in and adores STEM, but it is his words and verbal ability that are off the charts. I'm not going to pigeonhole him into one thing or the other, but so far I have needed to be more creative about how I challenge him in the humanities vs. how I challenge him in math. IMO and IME thus far it has just plain been easier for me to find ways to challenge him in math and science. There are many wonderful math and science options out there, easy to identify and ready for the taking. Sure, there's some hemming and hawing over appropriate leveling and output. I also often have thoughts like "dang why do you get these baby algebra concepts so easily, but find those multiplication facts so hard to nail down?" But in general, there's quite often a very logical progression of facts and materials available and not that hard (for me) to mix and match them as appropriate. Challenging him in humanities I have found more difficult, largely thanks to our old friend asynchrony. He's a great reader and it is easy to give him books intended for older students, but he's not yet at the place where he can write long papers delving into the nitty-gritty. To work around that, I've started using techniques with him that weren't used for me until high school. We've had plenty of tears, but usually those are a sign to me that we've bumped up against some developmental limitation and I need to back off and reevaluate the approach. Or that I've misjudged the material and he's finding it patronizing. Or that we're moving too slow or too fast. Kid has some goldilocks in him, I swear, but he does crave stimulation and challenge in every subject. So, that's my thoughts on the subject today, with only a few years of homeschooling under my belt, and elbows-deep in my weekend project, prescreening potential reading guides for the next few months. Ask me again tomorrow. And in 10 years. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebunny Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Ultimately, I think, for her, it really is a maturity issue. She's still black and white, with no space for grey, no space for contrary opinions. And because of that, she's not able to have the reasoned, rational discussions and debates because she cannot conceive that two people can hold different opinions and that both may potentially be right. being "right" doesn't mean that someone else is "wrong", and that's something she needs right now. There are many many 25 yr olds in my class who also struggled with the above quoted part. They just could not fathom that there are multiple perspectives on any matter. It has been really interesting to see the maturing, if you will, of their opinions and beliefs last year through some heavy duty reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanikit Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I disagree that there are no opinions in science - that is what a hypothesis is: I think that ... will happen ... (that is an opinion, a thought, a perceived idea. Then of course they must prove it which is where the experimentation comes in - but it all starts with a theory. The theory is usually based on something that came before - something someone else thought and had an opinion on that they tested to see if it was true. However going back to the laws of physics and the laws governing our world - these are often presumed - they fit with what we have seen, but you cannot prove a negative so that those rules are ALWAYS in place cannot be proved. There are mathematics questions that ask you to prove why 1+1 is not always 2 - these are usually mind benders and involve both language and a play with equipment. I work in a STEM career (in a medical field) and yet it is known that there is a great deal of art involved - we don't always know. I agree that we should not be separating the two as much as we try to do. As for experimentation - the problem with advising people on diet based on theories and experiments up until now is that very often they have missed something - they think that the human body is simple and that it can be explained simply - it is not simple, it is immensely complex which is why no one is even close to creating a live thing from matter alone. So that being said it is no wonder that people are less likely to believe supposedly scientific advise on diets when the advise continually seems to contradict what went before - we are taught to question and that is right and scientists should be conducting experiments which is why many people are conducting their own experiments as far as what a diet does to them - unfortunately drawing conclusions becomes a bit inaccurate as studies need to be properly formulated and have controls. Much of scientific study in this day and age however is based on money and who pays for what and which studies will actually be published - this is not science - this is economics (now is that a STEM or a humanities subject)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I didn't want to derail the previous thread, but I don't get it. Are we saying that STEM is just harder? Really? In my experience even a profoundly gifted math student can still be challenged to the point of tears over days and even weeks; but I'm hearing that for the gifted humanities student, it is just about passion and stimulation? WOW! *Why* is this? What does this mean philosophically? Right now, I think I pulled the short straw. I get tears and you get engagement. Ruth in NZ I think it is harder to challenge a student in the humanties. Math, for instance, follows a more logical sequence. The humanities have a depth and breadth that may be best approached as a meandering stream. I attempted to find challenge by going forward quickly, but still didn't find a spot where my son was challenged. But he did come to a place where things were boring. Humanities requires lots of contemplation of ideas. Going forward quickly without all the meandering along the way lessened the ability to contemplate many different ideas. So I gave up on challenging by going forward and am focusing on engaging him and give him more time to mature and contemplate. I tend to have a wide and deep approach to education anyway. We study philosophy and logic. We study Arabic, Mandarin, French, and Greek. The only thing he finds challenging is Greek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connections Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I wish I had more time to consider the philosophical implications (but I have to read today to keep up with my kids' Humanities work). I did want to comment on the reality of the differences in these disciplines. I do think that definitions are important here. When I use the term "challenge" I mean something that a student would not easily know the answer to and would either need assistance to fully comprehend or would need to "struggle" with to fully comprehend it on his own. The reality is that there is AoPS for math. I do not mean for that to sound flippant. I love AoPS because it DOES provide problems that are difficult. Now, when we turn to the reality of the Humanities, perhaps we need to look at foreign language in its own light- the skills involved (as Laura and others have commented) may set foreign language apart. I would need to think more on this. But the majority of the Humanities involve reading, thinking, writing, and speaking. So, my original question was along the lines of- what can I do to create my own AoPS for the humanities? Science is easier to accelerate. The scope and sequence is clearly defined. Perhaps human beings are wired to more intuitively grasp humanity. Edited 3/11 to delete details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gratia271 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think it depends on what you do in the Humanities. As I mentioned on the other thread, translating English to Latin orally was a real test for Calvin. And how about writing poetry to strict metre? There are so many aspects of the Humanities that can be intricate and hard. L Absolutely! My children have been challenged in this respect with Latin and with Greek. It really stretches them. Attic Greek has been far more engaging and challenging to my oldest than her math and science course work. Relatively speaking, she finds those subjects easy. Frankly I think that this culture's tendency to divide minds into types (Science or Humanities) does a great disservice. This is a modern conceit. Mathematics and Philosophy were sister disciplines. Today some role their eyes at the "uselessness" of a philosophy degree which is probably why I say that I had a "useless" education as well. My fear is that what enters these discussions are society's current values, i.e. STEM subjects are good and the Arts are a hobby. It just saddens me. Knowledge is knowledge. Both my oldest daughter and I completely agree with this! As she contemplates various college paths, she is so annoyed with people who want to classify her as one or the other. She wants to know why the modern world assumes people cannot excel in both areas. DH has a STEM background (Engineering/IT), and I am an attorney by training (science and humanities undergrad), so we see the invaluable role that the Humanities and STEM courses play in developing a well rounded adult. I agree with Jane that many of these discussions reduce to current trends/fads in education. Regarding Humanities being easier than STEM, it depends on what students are doing in each area. I think coming up with challenging Humanities courses is more difficult because STEM materials are more readily available in the US. I haven't struggled as much with it because of my background. You can tailor a robust, challenging Humanities track for students, though. Latin, Greek, Great Books, Philosophy... there are many options out there that can be engaging and challenging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Humanities pose greater asynchronicity issues than STEM does IMHO. I don't really have to worry about content for the most part if I want to hand my kid a math or science book written for adults (the college-level microbiology for nursing majors text did include some rather graphic photos of STD's but I decided that was actually probably a good reinforcer of my stance against casual hookups). But there are plenty of literary classics that I don't feel are age-appropriate for my middle-schooler. The writing issue is also more challenging when it comes to humanities. Even if all the books covered by a particular college-level humanities class are fine contentwise, DD isn't able to write a college-level literary or historical analysis paper yet. She's been using a literature textbook designed for 11th & 12th graders and I've been really having to adapt the output requirement because she's not writing at that level yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I am more familiar with literature and writing than philosophy, so my opinion on this may not extend to some areas of the humanities. I think the reason some people are frustrated by the "lack of right and wrong" is because we often fail to grasp that the reader completes the work. Certainly we consider new things in reading, but we each bring individual experience and bodies of accumulated ideas to our reading -- and this facet of individual flavoring is almost as much a part of the reading experience as the work itself. As with any art, the purpose of great writing is to elicit reaction. I believe many people have difficulty with the division between the concrete part (identifying themes, recognizing allusion, etc.) and the unique aspect each one brings to the work. Further, the individual's experience will inevitably influence his interpretations. For example (since we just read Mr. Popper's Penguins), my children and I could have both seen the themes of Follow Your Dreams and Nature is Good. But where they, at four and six, only see a fun story in which lots of silly things happen, I have the life experience to think, "Mr. Popper was a terrible, selfish father" and the reading experience (having just reread the awful seal-massacre story in The Jungle Book) to think, "Those poor penguins are being exploited." This is probably not the best example, but it's the first one that comes to mind at the moment. Perhaps the students most comfortable in the humanities are the ones who have the least trouble/most confidence in expressing themselves within the work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawthorne44 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Personally, I've always found Humanities incredibly difficult and STEM stuff easy. I am in awe of anyone that is fluent in more than two languages, because that is incomprehensible to me. I remember trying to read Kant in High School once. Only thing I've ever read with zero comprehension. My brain kept inserting the longer version of BS in randomly, but more than once per sentence. But, as a STEM person, I'm selfishly OK with the general perception that STEM stuff is hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawthorne44 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 dp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks everyone. I love waking up to a full discussion already in motion. You have given me lots to think about. Ruth in NZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacharsis Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I didn't want to derail the previous thread, but I don't get it. Are we saying that STEM is just harder? Really? In my experience even a profoundly gifted math student can still be challenged to the point of tears over days and even weeks; but I'm hearing that for the gifted humanities student, it is just about passion and stimulation? WOW! *Why* is this? What does this mean philosophically? Right now, I think I pulled the short straw. I get tears and you get engagement. Ruth in NZ In general, I think that the difficulty has to do with understanding anchor points (and the deterioration of anchor points in some humanities disciplines). In the sciences, no matter how theoretical it gets, one has to explain the engineering; the theoretical reasoning behind why a Thermos (vacuum flask) keeps hot things hot and cold things cold could be wrong -- but any new explanation must explain why a Thermos works at all, because the fact that it does work has been made self-evident through its successful existence. Bringing it back to the anchor ensures a steady challenge. In the humanities things are more complicated. History is probably the easiest to challenge oneself with, because while it might be possible to say that a particular historian is wrong or lying, there is usually still archaeological evidence that must somehow be explained; if Roman coins are found in a Chinese dig site, they must be explained by any new theory that replaces the old. Philosophy is more difficult, because it deals with how humans relate to the world; if Bertrand Russell and C.S. Lewis disagree, it's quite possible to say that the reason for the conflict is because one person is just wrong, and leave it at that. A person has to force themselves into the challenge with many of the humanities. Why would they believe that as another intelligent human being living in the same objective reality? What is the missing link? Also, unfortunately, some humanities disciplines seem to have lost their traditional anchor points entirely, and are blowing in the wind. For instance, one major anchor point for poetry was being memorable -- in an illiterate world, poetry that could not be remembered would not be passed along. As mass literacy became common-place, this requirement faded, and most poetry went off in vaguer directions. Now if someone makes a "bad" poem, what can a person use as justification for that opinion? I am not sure I understand. The only thing scientists believe in is that phenomena have rational explanations and that humans can know. Scientists do not believe that certain laws exist; the experimental evidence agrees with the laws, and the laws make predictions that come true - thus the law will be accepted as a reasonable explanation within, and depending on, the parameters of a system. For example, laws that govern the behavior of macroscopic objects at small speeds may not be valid for microscopic particles or objects traveling at high speeds. Opinions have no place in science, unless they are substantiated by experimental or observational evidence. Well, now, that's not entirely fair. :) That's the ideal that scientists strive for, but much like Plato's ideals, they are often only approximated. Scientists have their petty jealousies, their pride, their anxiety over how the results of a new study will influence future grant funding, and while the perfect scientist will gracefully bow out when their branch of research has been proven pointless by new discoveries, human scientists are less likely to leave without a fight. :) I believe that that was what Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions was partially trying to explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrale Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 My major is in humanities. And it is a lot of work. I have considered going back to school to do STEM as I am just better at it. But I do like both. I know people who are the opposite to me. Now what I find hard is art. Art is hard I can't even draw decent stick people. I am a crafter, but I have to copy someone else's designs. And Music, that is hard too! I played several instruments and sing.... But gosh music theory in high school was insanely challenging for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoughtfulMama Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I disagree that there are no opinions in science - that is what a hypothesis is: I think that ... will happen ... (that is an opinion, a thought, a perceived idea. Then of course they must prove it which is where the experimentation comes in -Actually, that's not exactly the proper application of the scientific method. The Hypothesis is not an opinion but a statement (question) that you either disprove or support. Often, for the statistics to work, you choose a hypothesis that is the opposite of what you believe might be true. And a scientist would never claim to "prove" anything but instead "supports" something. But regardless, and back to the topic, as a scientist one of the fields of study that helped me most was in-depth literature analysis. Organizing your thoughts and presenting them in a rational format was the single most important skill that I took from my English and Classics courses in college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.