Being scientific/logical: can you ever go too far?

[Shinova]

I heard about one guy (real guy, not made up) who got accepted to CalTech. Apparently he was so good, CalTech offered to pay his WHOLE tuition during his entire stay there. So he went.

This guy is a genius. His school had a robotics team where they built robots that competed in tournaments and he wrote the entire software for that robot by himself and played a major role in the robot's actual design. That robot went on to win many competitions.

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"


Comments? Is there a point where one can become too "scientific"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

In my opinion...no. Being logical and scientific is perfect for one who has the correct mindset. He does, he can handle it apparently. IMHO in depends on the person in question. Me, I try to think things through logically, and then motivate myself by using my emotions.

[Shinova]

In my opinion...no. Being logical and scientific is perfect for one who has the correct mindset. He does, he can handle it apparently. IMHO in depends on the person in question. Me, I try to think things through logically, and then motivate myself by using my emotions.

Just making sure, but you did read that quote I put, right? About how he thinks literature, history, and such are basically useless junk? Just making sure.

[neoolong]

I don't think he's too logical or scientific. It looks like he is just really really arrogant and thinks anything he doesn't like is worthless. That arrogance may come from his high intelligence, but not necessarily being logical or scientific. After all, logically history is good, those who forget are doomed to repeat it and all that jazz.

[Durandal]

I heard about one guy (real guy, not made up) who got accepted to CalTech. Apparently he was so good, CalTech offered to pay his WHOLE tuition during his entire stay there. So he went.

This guy is a genius. His school had a robotics team where they built robots that competed in tournaments and he wrote the entire software for that robot by himself and played a major role in the robot's actual design. That robot went on to win many competitions.

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

Comments? Is there a point where one can become too "scientific"?

Well, history certainly isn't useless. History helps run governments.
Studying poetry and literature is, in my opinion, a hobby that has been turned into a career by people who just can't do anything else.

Being scientific doesn't necessarily mean bashing other fields of study as useles; this guy's just arrogant. Granted, I am, too. A lot of science majors are. Poety and literature may not be useless, but science certainly is more useful.

[Raptor 597]

I regard literature and history as important pastimes at it's regarded least and keys too the future at it's highest esteem. Art however is just a bunch of pretty pictures and painter's feelings and emotions. Not some deep spirtual shit. I also view modern as mostly crap.

[Ravencrow]

"Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

That might just his own personal opinion. I know people who are not 'scientific' who think the same way. They just don't find any way to apply them in their lives so they think it's 'useless'.

IMHO, Poetry and Literature isn't meant to be studied the way one studies Science or even History. They are more like expressions of feelings, humanities and stuff. One either enjoys them or one does not, nothing to do with 'usefulness'.

[kojikun]

literature is nonessential and is only recreational at best it servesno purpose and is therefor useless as applied knowledge unless you need experience with knowing how to write etc.

[Alferd Packer]

Being able to competently read something is just as important as a good scientific grounding. It lets you appreciate the full effort someone put into writing it.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I know some pretty smart people who ignored history and thought the high stock prices of 1999 and 2000 were gonna last forever. A little history might have helped.

[Drewcifer]

FEAR NO ART!

*ahem*

I don't think that fine arts and hard science are really comparable; they are 'processed' in the seperate lobes of the brain for the most part. And more importantly, the motivations and consequences of the two are quite different.

If I had to choose between being an imaginitive dolt or a heartless uber-geek, I'd be drooling in my watercolors every time. I'd miss the fatbrain stuff, to be sure (haha unless I became really stupid; I'd never remember what I was missing), but life without art seems pointless to me, personally.

One last threadjack, and I'll directly comment on the question at hand, but sometimes it cracks me up to see folks here miss a joke or start flaming away because they're taking something too literally or logically.

OK. I disagree with the dismissal of fine arts, but I'm glad that there are coldly rational folks out there; they make significant and sometimes revolutionary contributions to the body of sciencetific knowledge. In other words, I appreciate the diversity in our species' intelligent output, be it art or science and think that they both play an important role in our evolution as an intelligent species.

FEAR NO ART!

[TrailerParkJawa]

FEAR NO ART!

*ahem*

I don't think that fine arts and hard science are really comparable; they are 'processed' in the seperate lobes of the brain for the most part. And more importantly, the motivations and consequences of the two are quite different.

If I had to choose between being an imaginitive dolt or a heartless uber-geek, I'd be drooling in my watercolors every time. I'd miss the fatbrain stuff, to be sure (haha unless I became really stupid; I'd never remember what I was missing), but life without art seems pointless to me, personally.

One last threadjack, and I'll directly comment on the question at hand, but sometimes it cracks me up to see folks here miss a joke or start flaming away because they're taking something too literally or logically.

OK. I disagree with the dismissal of fine arts, but I'm glad that there are coldly rational folks out there; they make significant and sometimes revolutionary contributions to the body of sciencetific knowledge. In other words, I appreciate the diversity in our species' intelligent output, be it art or science and think that they both play an important role in our evolution as an intelligent species.

FEAR NO ART!

I heard that ART chicks are easy.

[ClaysGhost]

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

Comments? Is there a point where one can become too "scientific"?

No, I don't believe so. If someone is interested in poetry, and only in poetry, I doubt that would be seen as a problem, whereas interest in a science, and only in science, is sometimes interpreted as a problem. I remember being asked once, in an earnest, "I-hope-you're-not-certifiable" kind of way, whether I read literature. I felt like replying, "Yes; do you read Nature?". Occasionally, the people worried about scientists having a narrow set of interests have quite a restricted field of view themselves.

Now, that's separate from this statement you quoted above; that statement is daft, arrogant and an incorrect summary of the facts. Interest in a field is not the same as accepting the fundamental worth of a field.

[The_Nice_Guy]

The image of most science inclined students being prejudiced against the humanities is pretty accurate. It does describe, if not all, then at least 50% of most science students.

In fact, the more rigorous the subject(from biology to chemistry to physics to maths), the more prone the science student is to espousing the viewpoint that humanities are useless.

At least, that's what I've seen.

Generally, society views science as being 'uncool', and young people/children would rather be artists and the like than be scientists. The 'mad scientist' stereotype does not help either. When was the last time we've seen competent and morally upright scientists in the movies? Most of the time, they're depicted as freaks and crazy geniuses.

I find that pretty depressing.

But still, some of the humanities is useful. History, particularly. Less so for literature, and for art.

The Nice Guy

[Zoink]

Poetry and Literature useless? Absurd. Humans are a social animal, and there is more to living as a human being then understanding math and physics.

Creativity, language skills, morality, social skills, debating, manipulation, etc, and in general understanding the human psyche.

All these things can be conveyed and learned through poetry and literature. You can learn about these things without having to directly experience them yourself. Being well versed in poetry and literature can't help you build the next warp drive, but it *can* help you socially.

If this genius is in fact arrogant: perhaps he should read more and understand why arrogance is a bad trait. I mean, if this guy has been snubbed or excluded from social events, he might label it as "jealousy of his intelligence", rather then simply not liking his arrogant personality.

Personally, I like reading other people’s ideas and experience. I like seeing how they convey their ideas. It’s like reading history; learn from other people’s mistakes and ideas.


-------

As to the original question: You can't be too scientific, but you can be lacking in other areas (like social skills), which might result from focusing too much on science, and not enough on others things like Shakespeare or even friday beer night ...

[Durandal]

By and large, people hate science because it's challenging. Not everyone can be a scientist. All they think of when they think of science is their high school biology/chemistry/physics class that they failed or struggled in because it wasn't composed entirely or rote memorization, like history or any other number of classes in American high schools.

They also don't like science because, to them, science is synonymous with math, and most people hate math and don't understand even basic algebra to any kind of usable degree. If you asked 10 random people to describe to you what "f(x)" means, 9 of them wouldn't have a clue.

I find a great deal of hypocrisy in some of the arts and humanities people. They study arts and humanities because "there's more to life than just numbers and science," but I could just come back and say, "There's more to life than arts and humanities, too." They have a prejudice against science because they could never really be successful at it, so they want to make it seem like the humanities are equally, if not more, important than science, which is patently absurd.

Of course, the two do overlap many times. Ask any mathematician about the difference between differentiation and integration, and you'll get something like, "Differentiation is a process. Integration is an art."

[Darth Wong]

Poetry and Literature useless? Absurd. Humans are a social animal, and there is more to living as a human being then understanding math and physics.

Science is like money; if you have it, you can afford the luxury of pretending it isn't that important. But if you don't have it, you're utterly fucked. Every poem, story, piece of art and music, or great work of literature in all of history is but a trifle when compared to the importance of basic historical engineering innovations like running water.

[Lagmonster]

Poetry and Literature useless? Absurd. Humans are a social animal, and there is more to living as a human being then understanding math and physics.

Science is like money; if you have it, you can afford the luxury of pretending it isn't that important. But if you don't have it, you're utterly fucked. Every poem, story, piece of art and music, or great work of literature in all of history is but a trifle when compared to the importance of basic historical engineering innovations like running water.

...Which is a nice way of saying that poetry and art and music are the creature comforts that we can enjoy as a result of being an affluent and advanced society. And for that, you have to thank science for the tools and processes we have learned that give us the ability to have the free time to have 'the arts'.

[Zoink]

Every poem, story, piece of art and music, or great work of literature in all of history is but a trifle when compared to the importance of basic historical engineering innovations like running water.

Of course. I'd burn everybook I own to keep a fire going in an emergency (note: bible goes first) and I'd clearly choose running water before a book dealing with some moral dilemna.... but I wouldn't go so far as to say that literature is unimportant. There's a difference in usefullness between a poem by Robert Frost, and say Harriet Tubman's biography. but as a whole, its needed to keep the population educated, informed, and moral(?); at least in the context of the society we have.

[The_Nice_Guy]

What was that Heinlein quote?

"The three-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots."

That's a pretty harsh viewpoint, but balanced in its own way.

The Nice Guy

[Yogi]

To answer the original question is if poetry, literature, and history are irrelavent or not, I will merely say that Star Wars borrows a lot from both literature and history.

[Enricko]

Can we have a link or something, because that quote may be out of context...

I mean, maybe somebody was asking him if litterature and stuff were useful for him.

[Darth Wong]

What was that Heinlein quote?

"The three-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots."

That's a pretty harsh viewpoint, but balanced in its own way.

The Nice Guy

Note that he did not mention art, poetry, or music. Mind you, the fact that Heinlein says something does not make it true. An argument is composed of more than that.

[Darth Wong]

To answer the original question is if poetry, literature, and history are irrelavent or not, I will merely say that Star Wars borrows a lot from both literature and history.

The person mentioned at the beginning of the thread is wrong to dismiss history; it is useful information. Poetry and literature, however, are luxuries, not necessities. Star Wars does not change this rule; it is also a luxury.

[Andrew J.]

He's wrong to say they're totally unimportant, even though they're less important than science.