The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[Patroklos]

Any idiot can find a way to judge value to society. Unfortunately, most of those ways will amount to "ask this guy". Equating value with salary has important advantages in that salaries are measurable things that can be established without interrupting any frog consumption.

Salary may have a measurment, but the value you place on those measurements is also subjective. Some people put no value on those measurements at all.

Or would you do anything just because it paid more?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Salary may have be measurment, but the value you place on those measurements is also subjective. Some people put no value on those measurements at all.

If you place no value on measurability, you're not worth talking with anyway.

Or would you do anything just because it paid more?

Erm? If I turned down an job offer as a drying paint watcher for $1000 more a month than my present job, a rather obvious interpretation would be that I value not being bored out of my skull at 1001+ dollar a month.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Scientists and engineers gives us the tools to use, the Liberal Arts give us the reasons and aims with which we will use those tools.

We've already established that physicists are statistically more likely to be world leaders than liberal arts majors.

Have we? What world leaders have been physicists?

[Kuciwalker]

Merkel.

[Patroklos]

Erm? If I turned down an job offer as a drying paint watcher for $1000 more a month than my present job, a rather obvious interpretation would be that I value not being bored out of my skull at 1001+ dollar a month.

If Kuci makes 60K being whatever number cruncher he turns out to be when he gets a job, would he rather be a history professor for 70K?

Or a sewage line inspector for 80K?

Of a dockyard worker for 75K?

Even if they involve the same about of work, doesn't mean you will do if just because you make more.

[Patroklos]

Merkel.

How does she prove that?

[ZEE]

yall worry too much about money...
but what the hell can i say...
im RETIRED

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If Kuci makes 60K being whatever number cruncher he turns out to be when he gets a job, would he rather be a history professor for 70K?

No, cuz he's willing to "pay" the differing 10k to avoid the hellish existence of a humanities guy.


I do not, incidentally, see what you're trying to get at.

[Patroklos]

Salary may have a measurment, but the value you place on those measurements is also subjective.

[Last Conformist]

The value you put on measurements is subjective, alright. It follows from the fact it's a value. I've not said a word against that, and I don't believe anyone else has either.

[Whoha]

Re: The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

Originally posted by MRT144
I was just wondering about the rationale that engineering/math/compsci students and graduates had behind the disdain for liberal arts.

I know that there has been some mention that many people that pursue a liberal arts type major are less intelligent, don't need to attend college for their future careers, etc etc. Anyone want to elucidate on this rivalry?

The liberal arts are fundamentally subjective.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

So what?

[Patroklos]

Any idiot can find a way to judge value to society. Unfortunately, most of those ways will amount to "ask this guy". Equating value with salary has important advantages in that salaries are measurable things that can be established without interrupting any frog consumption.

Salary is no more valid than anything else if it still amounts to "ask this guy."

[Whoha]

So we don't like subjective.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whoha
So we don't like subjective.

Who's "we"? You see, that's a stance I usually associate with those afflicted with varying degrees of autism.

Ideal scientists, in other words.