As a scientist, I'll say of course! But really, it's an interesting question, especially considering the common opinion that science is for the smart, and English is for the dumb. Eli Lehrer goes into the question in great detail, but the essence of his position is that bright students can succeed in any field, and tend to move towards those that are more profitable. I agree with that, but Mr. Lehrer thinks this trend can (and should) be changed by redirecting private and public funds towards the humanities; I don't see why.
For instance, he laments a lack of funding for undergraduate research in the humanities, but,
Of course, assisting in research is more problematic for students in the humanities. "I can’t really send an undergraduate to the library to read an article because he might get something totally different out of it than I would," says Carol Kaske, an English professor at Cornell. "We can’t do undergraduate research the same way they can in the sciences."Going to the library to read an article isn't real research. Real research is what you do after you know all the background information. Real research is the process of discovering or creating something new. Real research is standing on the shoulders of giants, not just looking around for giants. Going to the library (or the internet) can be part of it, but I get the feeling that what passes for research in most humanities departments is wholly different from scientific research.
From the humanities classes I took as an undergrad, my impression is that the vast majority of humanities study consists of activities smart people do on their own in their free time: read stuff, think about stuff, and then talk about stuff with their friends. It doesn't take someone with a Ph.D. to discern the symbolism in a Robert Frost poem or to speculate on demographics and voting patterns. There are certainly some excellent professors in these fields that add an enormous amount to the knowledge base (and write the books we love to read), but most of that is incidental to the actual study of humanities in most universities. This is probably why many smart students feel bored and apathetic towards the humanities.
An example from my own life. As a requirement for graduation I had to take three "cohesive" upper-division courses in a field unrelated to my own; I chose to take some film classes, because there weren't any annoying prerequisites. I took "History of American Film", "History of German Film", and "Musicals" -- all upper-division classes, and all filled with film majors. I had to write several essays for each course, and I was afraid that I wouldn't know what to write about because these were the first film classes I'd ever taken. Nevertheless, I my fears abated after the first few discussion sections when it became obvious that everyone was free to write about whatever they wanted, and most of the film students were about as deep as Sean Penn. I got As on all my papers with minimal effort, despite rarely going to class other than when the professor was showing a movie I particularly wanted to see.
The point isn't that the sciences are "better" than the humanities -- whatever that even means -- but that there are fewer people who can succeed in the sciences than who can succeed in the humanities. Here's a Venn diagram.
I'm not sure what you mean by "being good at" here, Michael, nor am I sure what you mean by "humanities." If you mean leftist deconstructionist agenda-ridden literature classes then sure, anyoine can be "good" at them because there is no real objectivity. If you mean philosophy, academic and objective literary studies, and theology then I'll throw my lot in with "humanities." Like you said, it's a tough question; I think that's largely because the terms are undefined.
I agree with SS's point.
The problem with the humanities these days is that they do not know how to prove anything. There are different ways to prove things (logic is different in geometry, political debate, and textual exegesis) and different degrees to which one can do so (necessary arguments, for the most part, etc.).
Since modern science has been successful at many things, and the irrational side of modernity has used this to overturn all the old ways of the humanities, we have a problem. The humanities think the only way to be a "science" is through the scientific method, etc., and so either accept relativism or try to reduce disciplines like politics to nothing but math and numerical probabilities. ("Geomancy," I call it).
The humanities as they used to exist were not liket this. Philosophy is a hard, hard thing. Its only synonomous with B.S. now because of the sophists who are currently in charge.
Do not confuse the problems of the present with what those disciplines other than "science" actually are.
K: I agree with you; as I said there are some excellent scholars in all fields. The problem is the way the humanities are actually taught.
Yeah, ain't it though. We are all on the same page, really. I have felt for a long time that there are a lot of people in science who would otherwise be studying something else because its the last place left where B.S. walks and you get to prove things and, at the end of the day, know truth.
I spend a lot of time around the "other side" of the academy...and man, is it fustrating. You have to wonder sometimes why someone would expend all the practical energy one is forced to in order to play around with what amounts to a hobby, as you say--what anyone with half a brain does in their free time.
Reminds me of visiting MIT and Harvard once, long ago. The MIT people were (generally speaking) less arrogant and willing to talk rationally about all kinds of interesting "humanities" issues. The Harvard people (again, generally from a few brief visits) were ahem, a...tad..more arrogant and hard to rationally converse with about any of the "humanities" issues.
The revolution will not be televised...nor make light of the important, essential disciplines that are now treated as objects of mere curiousity!
Savants in the humanities want to be taken too seriously took much of the time. Scientists start with questions, doubt, and skepticism moving hopefully toward clear responses and healthy theories. Too often, perhaps because of the nature of the inquiry, those in the humanities end with questions, doubt, and skepticism.
Thoughtful reflection, clarity, and healthy dialogue can easily get pushed to the side in humaniities research when the process is only meant to make a name for oneself by pushing an idea to the weirdest possible extreme.
Unfortunately, serious inquiry is not necessary, or expected, for the sake of gaining attention. Notice all the papers written about the cosmological implications of the first Matrix film.
MW: Frankly, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to do anything. But from your tone I believe that you have an impoverished conception of what it means to understand a poem by Robert Frost.
K: And to say that science reveals truth reveals an incomplete appreciation for history, or an unaccapetably low standard for the application of the word "truth".
MW: The humanities are living ancestors of the sciences, and should not be taken lightly. Genuine success in the first is non-trivial, contrary to your experience in three film classes at UCLA, and often motivates the direction and progress of the second. The Venn diagram is quite ill-formed, given an adequate standard of success in the humanities.
Nick: There are certainly many things which require a Ph.D.-level of knowledge to do. Actually acquiring the degree is incidental, if that's what you're implying. I can't see how you could possibly make a determination about my appreciate for Robert Frost based on my statements.
Further, many of silly things are the ancestors of many important things. I don't think the humanities are silly, but I do think the way they're taught and studied in modern universities is generally lacking in seriousness.
My Venn diagram doesn't necessarily correspond with "success" -- it can be pretty difficult to make a living with many humanities degrees. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the general proportions of the circles.
It is undeniably true that the way the humaities are taught at 90% of the universities is flawed [on a side note, remember that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)].
I remember a philosophy class at Loyola Marymount University, where the starting premise for the semester was that Truth is unknowable to man. It is important to remember, however, that if humanities was studied the right way; even the science that you study would properly fall under the humanities.
I apologize if I seemed hostile before.
Without knowing anything about Robert Frost, an intelligent person can can pick up one of his poems and understand, and appreciate, a great deal of what it means. What I had in mind when I hurriedly wrote the previous comments was this: by reading many works of Robert Frost from different periods, by reading the works of contemporaries of Robert Frost, by learning about the life of Robert Frost, by learning about the specific historical context and language of the time in which he wrote, by reading the works of those who inspired Robert Frost, and by reading the works of those who were inspired BY Robert Frost, one can gain an even greater appreciation for the meaning of an individual poem that was written by Robert Frost. To imply that these things are done easily or commonly in the free time of those with half a brain, I think, is incorrect. Most people, including even the most intelligent scientists, do not have the background knowledge or experience to do this without a significant expenditure of effort and time.
And by saying that the humanities are ancestors of the sciences, I did not mean simply that they came before. Regardless of whether an ancestor of an important thing was a silly thing, understanding and evaluating the nature of an effect is promoted by understanding and evaluating the nature of one of it's causes. Even if one considers science the ultimate pursuit, it seems difficult to deny that studying the humanities contributes to our understanding of science in a way that is unique and valuable, and that such study is worthy of the greatest minds.
Michael, once again, your ignorance and lack of logical argument are astonishing. It is common among arrogant students of all disciplines to think that they could do another one just as well as their own "if only they had chosen that field/if it were profitable" etc. And perhaps that's true. Perhaps I'd kick your ass at computer science if that was something I wanted to do. But you can't say that because dumb classes are typically listed under the humanities that there isn't real research done there or that you don't have to have a Ph.D. to really get literature. Personally, I think Robert Frost is also about as deep as Sean Penn, and I wouldn't name him among the great poets. But much of what is done among the humanities requires not only a solid knowledge of existing academic literature (hence why most academic articles begin with a "literature review" of related writings regardless of their field) but thinking abilities that are beyond the average person. Luckily, much of the humanities has been considered important in our society and culture, so most people aren't completely incompetent (at least in my experience, I didn't "grow up around" scientific principles so they were like learning a foreign language in old age by the time I got around to it), but that doesn't mean that more people are good at them.
I don't know why you insist on making up data, but last I checked, there are actually more left-brained people than right-brained. And just like there are a hundred thousand dropout web programmers who never go anywhere for every Bill Gates who is the pinnacle of genius, there are very few people who really master a discipline in the humanities. Those positions are actually very lucrative. Not everyone can be a graduate student, in film or political science or poetry or in any of the things you seem to think most scientists would be just great at.
I don't even know why I spend words over here, because I already know there's no changing your mind about anything. I am just flabbergasted that you continue to submerge below even my lowest expectations of you. It's quite a feat, really.
Candied Ginger--
Do you even read posts before you comment on them?
Michael has said (largely) positive things about the humanities. His most vehement (and correct) attack is on the way humanities are taught at the modern university. That attack is dead on, and if the modern university is the guideline I too stand by the Venn diagram.