Comment by mox1
6 years ago
This is soo very spot on and exactly how I felt about a lot of my humanities classes in college. I almost failed the first one, then learned how to play the game and did a lot better. Sad but true.
I always say I loved engineering classes simply because 1 + 1 = 2, not much room for debate there.
Your comment encapsulates most of the controversy and disagreement in this thread.
Many engineers and technically-oriented people are naturally inclined to accept a fixed worldview: binary logic, set theory, F = ma and not F=ma^2, etc. If you reject the accepted worldview of physics, computer science, math, then you're a crank. Following a set list of rules is a safety blanket. There are no alternatives ("no room for debate") so that quiets the mind.
The world of the humanities doesn't have a fixed view and that can result in discomfort. Even everyday life doesn't have a fixed view and it's part of the language game ( from Wittgenstein) we play.
Unfortunately, most interesting questions in life don't have single, un-debatable, simple answers.
They do, actually, if you choose a consistent set of basic axioms. Just as in math.
Problem is, unlike math, there's no particular objective reason to prefer some axioms over the others, and so there's substantial disagreement over which ones are "correct". And, of course, depending on which ones you choose, the conclusions derived from them can be radically different, opposite even.
But this is still formalizable - you can make statements such as "from an utilitarian perspective, X is the preferred course of action". You don't have to agree with that perspective for the conclusion to be testable and practically useful.
> Unfortunately, most interesting questions in life don't have single, un-debatable, simple answers.
Because as soon as they have, they stop being interesting.