Philosophy and the humanities are underrated in education.

I agree with Roy: Our debate does not doubt the importance of either the arts or the sciences, but rather whether the humanities are now underrated. Keep in mind, however, that the sciences are not exclusive from the humanities to begin with. As I explained in the last round, the humanities includes fields such as anthropology - which is very scientific - and philosophy which is the crux of both mathematical and scientific theory. While specialized roles in industries for work are of course important, educational institutions should not continue to narrow the margin of a pupil's education just to groom them for a future career. If the sole purpose of an education was preparation for work, the university as we know it would not exist, and instead everyone would just seek apprenticeships after learning how to read. In college, students pick a major which usually acts as a starting point for a career. However a career is not the only purpose of a student, or of a person. Currently, the humanities are typically dismissed as "fluff" introductory courses that don't satisfy any utility outside of BS core requirements. Con hasn't denied the frivolous perception of the humanities despite acknowledging their importance. Just because in-demand jobs require focused skills does not in any way whatsoever prove that education in the humanities is adequate. All it proves is that focused skills are useful which I would not deny. The U.S. needs to adopt more specialized technological skills in order to compete in a global economy. However, how should the economy be structured? How should it be governed? What should the relationship be between the two? These are questions explored by philosophy and the humanities - not technological studies - but they are questions that are profoundly important to us all. Con suggests that science and technology are underrated as cultivating the intellect, but clearly that is not true. In fact, some people equate intelligence in relation ONLY to one's abilities in math and technology. Einstein is instinctively considered "smarter" to us than Shakespeare. When we think of a genius, we conjure up images of a mad scientist. We highly value scientific prestige, while dismissing the utility of common sense and critical thinking as it applies to notions about our livelihood. Roy writes, "I claim that disaster in society lies in theorizing a different world without an understanding of how the world we have actually works." I posit that a better understanding of the humanities is what teaches us about how the world actually works. A comprehensive understanding of history, politics, law, foreign policy, economics, culture, communication, etc.-- Knowing about how these things came about and currently exist in a holistic framework will allow us to be more realistic and understanding about the world we live in, and how to potentially make it better. While it's convenient for my opponent to cite examples of people using misguided reasoning to try to change the world (eg. fascism and Maoism), that is manipulative as I could easily provide examples in which ideas attained through studying philosophy and the humanities made the world an arguably better place: the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, even the American Revolution. Philosophy teaches us the process of coming to logical conclusions and finding solutions. Creativity and imagination are responsible for the ideas that fuel industries that make technology valuable in the first place. Of what use is an architect, scientist or engineer if they lack imagination? How can people be innovative without creative albeit practical inspiration? Of course science and technology cultivate the intellect, but they are fueled by ideas fostered through exploring the humanities. Roy claims that "Forcing philosophy upon high school students would be child abuse." Why couldn't this same standard apply to Chemistry? Not everyone has an aptitude for science. Unlike people who pursue chemistry as a career, people in every occupation or non-occupation will theoretically have a say in the laws that govern our lives. If people were excessively educated in technological fields without any capacity to reason through concepts such as truth, morality, justice, equity, etc., then how are they responsible or competent enough to have a vote that is equal to mine in the laws that dictate my life? Con argues that since philosophers do not all agree, understanding philosophical concepts must not have value. Of course, not all scientists agree either, and unanimous agreement is not necessary to prove utility. By understanding philosophy, you are able to better make up your mind up about what to think from a position in which you are more fully conscious of the alternatives, and rationalize strengths and weaknesses of arguments in topics ranging from ethics to mathematics. This gives you a kind of freedom to decide for yourself what to think, and this freedom isn't enjoyed by everyone. I'm sure my opponent agrees that his beliefs are superior to those who disagree with him-- in fact, the debate we are having now is philosophical in nature. If people aren't able to craft or dissect an argument, they are susceptible to believing anything they are told which is detrimental to a free society. Con himself acknowledges that reality: he says that when challenged with new information or arguments, it"s just easier for most people to believe what their peers believe. Philosophy specifically discourages this type of rationalization, and in fact notes it as fallacious in appealing to the majority. The study of philosophy develops many skills, including critical thinking despite Roy's assertion to the contrary. It allows us to identify the problem or goal, explore a potential resolution, and reflect on its utility. The ties between studying philosophy and improving critical thinking have been documented [1], and are useful to Philosophy majors post-graduation [2]. Moreover, a recent issue of a journal published by the American Medical School Association indicates that a very high proportion of philosophy majors applying to medical schools have been accepted [3]. Con ignores the reality of philosophy and many aspects of the humanities being intertwined with the sciences. He ignored my argument that a better understanding of the humanities can actually foster an appreciation of the sciences. In conclusion, just because the job market does not have a high demand for careers in the humanities does not prove that the humanities are not underrated. This is an irrelevant contention. The jobs that ARE focused on the humanities are extremely important despite not being highly in demand in our current global economy. I've provided some examples in the last round of important professions based on the humanities: politicians, lawyers, teachers, judges, activists, business leaders, psychologists, etc. More importantly, the people impacted by these individuals ought to have an understanding of what these people are fighting for. Roy mentions the obvious value of Bill Gates, but the most important people of the 20th Century cited by TIME magazine contain mostly people focused on the humanities: Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, etc. Of course many philosophers are responsible for shaping Roy's own values to boot. In the last round, I pointed out that every debate comes down to values. Society can not determine its values without a firm grasp of the humanities. Technological competence is secondary to first understanding one's values (realized through understanding the humanities) and thus goals. [1] http://www.hss.cmu.edu... [2] http://www.statepress.com... [3] http://www.amsa.org...