What value is in liberal arts education?

[FBM]

Thank you for that, Hermit.

I do feel that the quality of my awareness of what's going on, what has been going on, and what will probably will be going on in the future has been enhanced by my education in Philosophy. My early theism survived a (minor) degree in science, but was obliterated by a single course in Philosophy (History of the Bible).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm using my degree and very happy with it. I just wish I'd had all that training when I on active duty, I could have made some better calls and maybe made things easier for a few of the guys.

[FBM]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

Yeah, at least at Purdue it's in Liberal Arts. "The only thing new is the history you don't know yet."

[FBM]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

Yeah, at least at Purdue it's in Liberal Arts. "The only thing new is the history you don't know yet."

I was wondering, History of Science would be a Liberal Arts major, no? If so, it would be "useless." But of course, every science program teaches...history...of that science. *cough*

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

Yeah, at least at Purdue it's in Liberal Arts. "The only thing new is the history you don't know yet."

I was wondering, History of Science would be a Liberal Arts major, no? If so, it would be "useless." But of course, every science program teaches...history...of that science. *cough*

Scientists need to know the history of their field, of course, to avoid going down dead-ends. But I disagree on one point, science programs can be limited to the "mechanical" aspect of field, especially early on as the profs try to keep the students from blowing up the labs or creating a neo-con from spare body parts in the dissection areas.

[cronus]

History is opinion for the most part and Chinese whispers for the remainder. Subjective historical 'facts' are distorted and lost in translation, disregarded or magnified with regards the topical moral social currency of the day. Very often the parts that repeat do so with enough variation that you forget you shouldn't be repeating the same mistake over and over and over and over....now onto the relentless drone bombings of civilian targets and various wars of today....how will they be recalled historically speaking?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

History is opinion for the most part and Chinese whispers for the remainder. Subjective historical 'facts' are distorted and lost in translation, disregarded or magnified with regards the topical moral social currency of the day. Very often the parts that repeat do so with enough variation that you forget you shouldn't be repeating the same mistake over and over and over and over....now onto the relentless drone bombings of civilian targets and various wars of today....how will they be recalled historically speaking?

Yeah, that's what they taught us not to do in Historiography.

[FBM]

Scientists need to know the history of their field, of course, to avoid going down dead-ends. But I disagree on one point, science programs can be limited to the "mechanical" aspect of field, especially early on as the profs try to keep the students from blowing up the labs or creating a neo-con from spare body parts in the dissection areas.

They can be, yes, but the fact is that they aren't. Every science class I ever took started with a review of the history of that science. Because the people who design those programs know that knowing history is important and useful.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Scientists need to know the history of their field, of course, to avoid going down dead-ends. But I disagree on one point, science programs can be limited to the "mechanical" aspect of field, especially early on as the profs try to keep the students from blowing up the labs or creating a neo-con from spare body parts in the dissection areas.

They can be, yes, but the fact is that they aren't. Every science class I ever took started with a review of the history of that science. Because the people who design those programs know that knowing history is important and useful.

Hmmm, not my experience, but I approve.

[FBM]

History is opinion for the most part and Chinese whispers for the remainder. Subjective historical 'facts' are distorted and lost in translation, disregarded or magnified with regards the topical moral social currency of the day. Very often the parts that repeat do so with enough variation that you forget you shouldn't be repeating the same mistake over and over and over and over....now onto the relentless drone bombings of civilian targets and various wars of today....how will they be recalled historically speaking?

Ah. So no historians rely on empirical evidence.

[Hermit]

History is opinion for the most part and Chinese whispers for the remainder. Subjective historical 'facts' are distorted and lost in translation, disregarded or magnified with regards the topical moral social currency of the day.

Certainly, but when you get around to reading accounts of the same historical event or trend by eyewitnesses and historians with differing biases you'll eventually get a more focused picture of what happened. I recommend that you read Edward Hallett Carr's What is History? and Fritz Stern's Varieties of History to clear your mind on the matter.

[FBM]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

Yeah, at least at Purdue it's in Liberal Arts. "The only thing new is the history you don't know yet."

Just one example: When I took Microbiology, we started the semester with the history of the microscope, Leeuwenhoek and the whole bit. Why? Because it's important, even though it's not in itself science.

[FBM]

We don't value narrow minds, so why would we value narrow education?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Speaking of which, I think History is still considered a Liberal Arts major, innit? I'm pretty happy about knowing something about that. Not wanting to repeat certain parts of it, and all.

Yeah, at least at Purdue it's in Liberal Arts. "The only thing new is the history you don't know yet."

Just one example: When I took Microbiology, we started the semester with the history of the microscope, Leeuwenhoek and the whole bit. Why? Because it's important, even though it's not in itself science.

Rather, it was the fundamentals of the science you learned.