From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:53:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr16.165347.15729
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences

In article <1992Apr16.022613.18865@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu.UUCP (John Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.234444.27406@colorado.edu>
>ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>
>>Studying literature (for example) is all well and good, but a million
>>people studying literature is not going to feed any starving people or
>>launch anybody into space.
>
>   The fact that people are starving is tragic and I will not comment
>further on it.  But in reply to the second part, I could say, "Lauching
>people into space isn't going to teach anyone Homer."  Why is putting a
>few specially chosen astronauts in space more important or better than
>teaching generations of people about literature?  
>  
>   Why do we want to put people into space, anyway?    

That's a whole different question, but briefly, space technology does
indeed feed starving people. The space program made amazing contributions
of technology to almost every facet of life on this planet. Just to mention
one example, weather satellites are crucial for weather prediction, which is
extrememly crucial for farmers, fishers, and food transportation. Not to mention
picnics. Before you make the standard complaint that they never predict
the weather right anyway, that's simply not true. Satellite imagery has
dramatically improved weather prediction.

If you don't like space technology, how about tractors. They help feed
people don't they? Feeding people is not the only goal either, it's just 
an example. I think you'ld be hard put to deny that the difference
between dying in your 30's in a filthy, disease ridden hovel, after
spending a life on brual toil, and sitting in your living room writting
email to me is a pretty big benifit of engineering over the ages.

>
>>[deletions] But I do think that most engineers spend their lives building
>>stuff, creating things that others will use, whereas most humanities people
>>simply study the creations of a (relatively few) great contributors, and
>>really do not create anything themselves which others will see.
>
>   What do you mean by "create"?  Does an engineer really "create" a
>building?  On the contrary, I suspect the typical engineer follows
>specifications slavishly and then, if there is any room left, some
>inventiveness or originality comes in.  And that structure will
>eventually fall to ruin, without a doubt.  Ideas are more permanent.
>
That just goes to show you don't understand engineering. Who wrote the
specifications? Do you think God handed down blueprints for the Empire 
State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge in the Dead Sea Scrolls? These
were developed by engineers, and the amount of creativity involved
is enourmous.
The fact that the structure will eventually fall does not detract
from the creative acomplishment, for two reasons. 1 - millions 
(maybe billions) of people will benifit materially from the structure
before it fails, and 2 - the techniques and technology used ARE
ideas, and are as permanent as Shakespeare's plays. When the
first cable suspension bridge ever built falls, they will still
be building cable-suspension bridges. That idea has entered into
the human information storehouse, and will always be available for 
use, and improvement.

>   Moreover, a distinction should be made between material and
>non-material goods.  Only so many people can be in a building or on a
>bridge at a given time, since there is only so much to go around.  The
>goods the humanities profess to bring are different, however.  They are
>not nearly so limited.  If I take the trouble to learn some Latin, it
>doesn't stop anyone else from doing so.  It's a good that is not
>diminished by being enjoyed.  And so, even teaching the humanities and
>imparting them to others is good, even if the teacher is not especially
>"creative." 
>
>John Rickert					    Sunt lacrimae rerum, et
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		    mentem mortalia tangunt.
>								-- Vergil

Your last point is quite ironic, considering the medium we are using
right now. Do you see what I mean? 
You are correct in pointing out that information (or knowledge) creation
can be used by any number of people without diminishment of it's value.
What you fail to recognize is that one of the major tasks of the engineer
(if not the major task) is to create information. The plans for a bridge
are information, as I pointed out above, that can be used again and again.
Even more to the point, the software you are using right now is nothing
more than information created by software engineers. Now more than ever 
before engineers are creating things that can be replicated as often
as desired, and will not be diminished.

I never said that teaching the humanities was not good. (Why do I 
have to keep repeating this point?) I'm not attacking your profession;
it's a valuable and important one. I was just responding to the often-heard
(at least by me) charge that engineers are in it for the money.