"The simple way of subsuming offensiveness under the harm principle is to argue that that offensiveness is a form of harm in and of itself."

Tym and I got that in 1 reading, and didn't think it particularly abstruse; on the contrary it was very comprehensible (especially as some of these things go). A science PhD candidate friend, on the other hand, took 3 readings to understand that.

Which segues into some bits from a fascinating (though) interminable thread about the difference between the Arts and Social Sciences and the Harder Sciences:


"when I was tutoring for logic (it was called "PH1101" then) in NUS, almost all of the lecturer's examples for the segment on informal fallacies came from the Straits Times, especially the forum page."

"I am not all that comfortable with the term "vagueness" as applied to the humanities--"open ended" might be better. As I see it, there is nothing vague at all. In fact, precision of though is a virtue in any discipline worth its salt. (Ok, maybe my own background in philosophy has influenced my perceptions: I've graded many a paper down for vagueness and lack of clarity before.) Rather, the point is that the questions do not have set answers (unlike physics or mathematical problems) that can simply be discovered; instead different possible answers (that can only be predicted to a limited degree in advance) can be better or worse argued for--hence the room for discussion and debate. In much of philosophy, the debate is exactly over how best to make more precise the problem at hand..."

"[On some scientists being good writers but no writers being good scientists without a science backgroun] the humanities ppl you are thinking of are writing in stuff that are of broad human interests (English lit, non technical sociology and anthropology, etc.)--so that the disciplinary barriers of entry are not as high beyond the usual commitment to logical thinking. But this is not true of all humanities subjects. I've never heard of a scientist who can just switch gear and talk about, say, ancient Hittite linguistics or Shang Oracle bone inscriptions, without first having spent time studying that stuff. The divide you are alluding to is not really one between science and humanities as much as one between generalist vs specialist fields."

"I was both an arts and a pure maths student in the U. I'd say that science is deep, but the humanities is broad. There was this argument that science is somehow "superior" because science people can talk about arts stuff, but not the other way around, fair enough, but fact is, you can program a computer to prove theorems, but you can't program a computer to write essays yet. You can have 10 year olds who are Maths and Science prodigies, but generally the very best people in the arts and humanities have to go through a long period of study before they can be considered a master in their field, simply because you need wider knowledge for that."

***

Someone: so would you argue that philosophers and FASS people play critical underappreciated roles in society?

without being machiavellian... even a nonspecifically critical role is acceptable

Me: I would say they are underappreciated
whether they are critical is another question

you see, science stuff does lead to tangible improvements in daily life, but very rarely do we get quantum leaps (eg invention of the lightbulb). More often we get small bounces (eg a better depilator), and most of the time - nothing.

Someone: eh don't devalue better depilators ok
almost as impt as light bulb

most of science, esp basic science... it's difficult to grasp its impact too
basic science research is the other end of the spectrum from philosophy, really.... for information's sake only. doesn't really contribute to bettering our physical lifestyle, only serves to feed the "fountain" of knowledge
e.g. theory of the big bang, my favorite example, is like studying history

Me: the thing is, ideas in the arts domain also have impact on daily life
theories about democracy affect the world we live in. theories about sociology affect social policies. theories about literature... nevermind.

Someone: the intangibles are what makes humans human after all... even beavers can build dams ("nature's engineers"!!) but without capacity for higher thought we are just funny-looking orang utans

Me: anyway. most people don't do things related to their majors
why is the singaporean bureaucracy so screwed up, uncreative, rigid and inflexible?
it's because they're all engineers!

Someone: if there is no equation to describe it... they have no clue whta to do


Tym: I shd like to think we are living in a world where practical concerns are not our only concerns.
Otherwise, might as well be monkeys.

Me: why do we have to do something "practical"? Singapore mah.
that's why we're all engineers and technicians rather than scientists and thinkers
wait for the Indians and Chinese to undercut us on cost

Someone (in response): don't you think the indians and chinese are kicking our butts on innovation though? we aren't even very good engineers and technicians.

we are a nation of well-trained sweatshop laborers la
high level, but still little more than drones