[kingkawn]

This would be true if the only listeners you’d encounter were computers.

But we live in the world of people, and demonstrating proficiency in only one insistent cultural mode because it is the most dedicated to rationalism is an impoverished worldview.

[mnglkhn2]

And "the world of people" needs to be driven by a coherent set of principles. So far the western world subscribed to rational thought and the socratic method.

The question is, to what extent the current shape of humanities is aligned to those principles?!

[kingkawn]

I think one quick glance around yourself these days and you can see that these principles have failed completely to account for the society that they would produce. In fact the insistence on Correctness implying superiority and the Right to undermine all other approaches is itself the first best example of how bankrupt this approach has become in the face of the problem of unifying a society around common beliefs and goals.

[allenz]

To the extent that the humanities are not "rational", whatever that means, they are a valuable and useful complement, and the world need not be driven by rationalism alone.

The humanities teach how to look from multiple perspectives, our values, what we believe and why, our self and our relation to society. It teaches critical thinking and analysis of complex, nonquantifiable factors, such as: should we declare war on North Korea? What does it mean to be Chinese American? Should I trust this person, website, or TV station? The humanities are about life, and virtually all the themes are immediately applicable in daily life.

[benbreen]

As a history professor, it's good to see such a civil and thoughtful discussion of the value of the humanities on HN. Thanks :)

For what it's worth, I enjoyed Prof. Rota's piece and didn't particularly object to his "what"/"how" distinction. I agree with commenters above that it's a misrepresentation of historical research, which can be deeply empirical. Unfortunately a huge amount of history education, especially k-12, does boil down to a rote memorization of past events, so I can't really fault him for the generalization.

[mnglkhn2]

Postmodernism revealed what happens when you look (intently) at ALL possibilities before you properly define YOUR identity and set of values.

Surprisingly, even Macron articulated that maybe Western world needs "great story arcs", which is code word for SHARED IDEALS.

War is always an attribute of survival and the problem is that US population is pretty insulated from acute strife on the survival front. But the risks are there and can only be appreciated once you train in geopolitics.

[skybrian]

If you look at business, there is certainly winning and losing but not necessarily falsification. If one business fails, this doesn't prove that nobody else could succeed. Maybe things have changed?

Court cases are won or lost, but sometimes overturned on appeal. Even Supreme Court rulings can be overturned by later rulings.

Artists create art that can win or lose in the marketplace. Art can also gain or lose status based on how it appears to critics. Artists can be popular, notorious, or obscure.

Similarly for writers. Politicians win or lose elections. Nations win or lose wars.

Winning and losing in competitive situations seems more fundamental than falsification. (Take evolution for example.)

[SolaceQuantum]

Defining rational thought and Socratic principles is pretty much exclusively within the wheelhouse of the humanities, I would think. Philosophy is a humanities subject.