From: keats@IASTATE.EDU (Venkata K Polineni)
Subject: Engineering/Sciences bashing ( Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?)
Reply-To: keats@IASTATE.EDU (Venkata K Polineni)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.022613.18865@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (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.
> 
> [some stuff deleted]  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?    
> 
> >[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.
> 
>    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
                                                                   ^^^^^^^
Virgil???

Mr. Rickert seems to be employing some twisted reasoning here. You seem to be
taking the
words "launch anybody into space" literally(no pun!). It is not a matter of
putting "a few
 specially chosen astronauts in space" as you say but a question of the
practical good
science can be put to. The astronauts are not going for a picnic in space or
just for the
fun of it.

Though I admit literature can be intellectually fulfilling, the practical good
it does is
next to nothing. Now don't brand me as another jaundiced engineer; but there is
no way a
lingusit or a novelist is going to find a cure for AIDS or device new materials
and processes
which directly advance human civilization. And there is no way they can find new
strains of
wheat or launch satellites for monitoring weather (where do u get your daily
weather reports
from?) and devise instruments for protecting their country when it is endangered
(though I
don't question their patriotism; I question their material contribution).

While enginneering/sciences cater to the basic needs of humanity, Literature
comes into play
only when they are satisfied. Try lecturing on Shakespeare to a starving man!!
The point I am
trying to make is, only when all your basic needs are satisfied do you turn (if
at all) to 
literature pursuits and engineering/sciences try to provide those basic needs. 

Engineering/Sciences are necessary and essential, while Humanities supplement
all round and
balanced development. The common man can do without the latter but not the
former. Personally,
I dig both, as my email address testifies :-)

All comments welcome.

keats@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad