Philosophy and the humanities are underrated in education.

Science, technology, and practical skills are underrated Society is producing too few people with practical skills to meet the needs of the modern world. The advances that have fed the world, conquered disease, and made the world a better place have come from technology, yet society has not adequately recognized the importance by promoting the needed beneficial skills. Pro seems to grant that type of overrating of the humanities, but to discount it as unimportant. I claim that having a continuing prosperous society is the most important consideration in deciding what is overrated. Societies struggling for existence cannot afford to support the arts or philosophy or anything beyond survival. As recently as 50 years ago, massive famines plagued the world. Science, technology, and practical skills have provided the means for feeding the world. Now famines occur only because people dream of authoritarian economic societies that not only starve the populace, but prevent aid from the rest of the world. The Humanities are overrated Pro argues that the humanities are underrated because “In fact, some people equate intelligence in relation ONLY to one's abilities in math and technology.” Some people, yes, but not the intellectual elite of our society. Pro provides the counter evidence by later arguing “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.” Time's recognition of the humanities in strong preference to the sciences, technology, and business, roughly 80-20. Time appointed distinguished panel to nominate the most important people of the 20the Century, and none of the top twenty were in science, technology, or business. http://www.amiannoying.com... The top five were Hitler, Oprah, Mao, Sinatra, and Ho Chi Minh. The two greatest 20the Century advancements in physics where Einstein's discovery of relativity and Neils Bohrs' discovery of quantum mechanics. Bohr didn't make the list, while Bart Simpson did. The Time panel was a fair reflection of a society that has valued the arts way above the sciences for many decades. A whole category of important people is devoted to the entertainers, part of the humanities, while all of science and technology is dumped into a category of equal size. Time editors stepped in and deemed Einstein the most important person the Century, even though the panel had him way below Oprah. That is a result of the Einstein mystique, not shared by any other scientist. Few people understand what Einstein did, even though they know it was important. Pro speculates that Einstein is more widely recognized as a genius than Shakespeare. I doubt that, because Shakespeare is a world-renowned figure. For example, Shakespeare is widely taught in Mexican grade and high schools. [http://www.worldshakespearefestival.org.uk...] and we suspect Einstein is not. Values do not come from the humanities Pro contends that usually debates comes down to values and that values come from the humanities. Many debates are purely factual, like whether vegetarians live longer, whether 0.9999_ = 1.0, or whether radiometric dating is accurate. Factual debates are important because facts describe what is true in the world. Factual debates also can come to definitive conclusions. I do not agree that values come from the humanities. That's like claiming that bird behavior comes from ornithologists. Values ultimately derive from the nature of mankind, expressed in societies. Humanities then study those values. We do not protect children because philosophers derived the value from base principles, we do it because that is our nature. It is important to study values, because societies have different ways of resolving the instinctual values associated with self, family, and society. But values are mainly played out without philosophers. Facts ought to determine debates that affect the world. Suppose we all value helping the poor. We then must decide if redistribution of wealth helps the poor more than free market capitalism. That's a fact issue that can be determined by observation. What advanced reasoning ability does is allow beliefs to be elaborately rationalized, so that they can be maintained in the fact of reality. North Korea expresses all the important values of economic socialism: redistribution of wealth, decisions made by a government elite, economic equality in society, no rich elite exploiting workers, and trade barriers keeping out competition. But why doesn't t stand as a valid example of socialism? It takes mastery of logical skills to make the example go away. The Humanities do not deliver as promised Pro points out that in addition to the bad examples of structuring society in ways that do not work, good ideas for structuring society also come from dreaming about what is possible. That there are so many bad outcomes means that the ideas do not converge, despite the claimed rational expertise that comes with philosophical thinking. Were philosophers really responsible for ending the ages of European rule by kings? It is more likely that the main force was natural social evolution. Kings are impractical when society is mobile and depends upon trade. Pro asks, “Of what use is an architect, scientist or engineer if they lack imagination?” Are we supposed to believe that imagination comes mainly from the humanities? That's nonsense. String field theory postulates an eleven dimensional universe wherein time can start and stop and matter is created spontaneously. That didn't come from the humanities. It came from trying to write equations that accurately describe reality. There are six million patents, each certified as describing an innovative solution to a practical problem. they were inspired by the need to solve problems, not by the humanities. Pro asks why chemistry ought to be valued above philosophy in high school. The reason is that high school students first need to prepare to make a living and to contribute to making a prosperous society. That doesn't require chemistry for everyone, but certainly employable skills over unemployable ones, and skills useful in navigating life over those that do not. Values are important, but philosophy does not teach values or how to derive them. If it did, philosophers would share the same values, and they do not. Philosophy provides the tools for rationalizing values acquired elsewhere. Pro argues that philosophy provides the tools that enable independent thinking. It provides the tools, but the remarkable lack of convergence proves the tools are mainly used for rationalization, not independent derivation. Try to think of some important problem in society that cannot be philosophically rationalized. All manner of crimes and mass idiocy have been justified. Current philosophical thought justifies human rights beginning at conception and also justifies killing infants up to age two. Take your choice, and there are arguments to support your case. By contrast, science converges. Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity are done deals. Controversies rage, but they are ultimately resolved. That should not be underrated. Philosophy majors can go on to be good medical students, and that's because they are smart people. I don't question that the humanities and science are intertwined. Modern physics has a profound impact upon philosophy. Abiogenesis and evolution study of the origins and development of life. Operationalism says that physical concepts like time, space, and energy are solely defined by how they are measured. The humanities are overrated because they do not fully deliver on what they promise. Skills for dealing with the real world are underrated because they deliver more than people acknowledge.