[zasdffaa]

> and to make explicit and examinable things we may not ourselves think to examine, or may otherwise think shameful or private and ours alone

That's just a claim, I could write the complete opposite and have it be just as (in)valid.

> be one factor in working out what exactly we're doing here, what we want or ought to be doing, expand

OK, so give some examples. Without saying "we all are doing/wanting different things". Get a mate, have a comfortable life... any advance on that?

> and provide ethical and moral guideposts more effectively than any kind of "do this, don't do that" list of bullet points

Another unverified claim and I don't accept any of it.

Point is when artistic types are pushed into a corner they come up with this kind of handwavy stuff about being human or whatever, the point being the fuzzier the claim the harder it is to dispute.

Art needs to at least try to be as rigorous as science, as it stands it so often lets itself down.

[trebbble]

Shrug. If you don't find it valuable, feel free to ignore it. Meanwhile most of your requests amount to "give me a liberal education in a Hackernews post" so are entirely ridiculous.

[dang]

You perpetuated this flamewar several times. Can you please not? We're trying to avoid this kind of thing, especially the kind that degenerates into a tit-for-tat spat, and double especially when the topic is something tediously generic like science-vs-humanities mud wrestling.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[zasdffaa]

Maybe it's not valuable because it's not true? (and maybe it is because it is - but how can I tell). In science we can point to solid results like having electric lights to write literature by.

What is literature worth - show me some measures. Oh, you can't. That doesn't make it worthless, I love a good book, and be happy if you said it brings much happiness to people, that alone would justify it. But you claim more, far too much.

Show me that liberal arts types are on average more ethical than science types, which seems to be what you claimed, or maybe don't claim so much.

[trebbble]

Again, feel free to disagree with and ignore the entire millenia-long traditions of the liberal arts outside math and science if you like. You may be right, and all those other people wrong. It doesn't seem like you're really trying to engage with it, though, and the answers to these "show me..." type requests are—and I'm not trying to be flippant—literally "read a book" (or, rather, lots of them—guides to which might be valuable are easy to come by) which is why I'm not trying to answer them. The attempt to address them is sometimes called the "Great Conversation" and can fill whole bookcases. But if you don't think anything's missing in your life that they might help fill in, or that it's even possible there can be any truth there because only science can provide truth, then don't. That's fine too.

[zasdffaa]

Arguing with artistic types is frustrating because they have no rigour. For instance "because only science can provide truth" - I never said that.

(edit: regarding "Maybe it's not valuable because it's not true?" I'm saying maybe literature is not as valuable as you claim, just so that doesn't get misunderstood, nothing to do with science).

"But if you don't think anything's missing in your life that they might help fill in" - Sure, I love a good escapist read and literature can definitely provide for that, but beyond that, what I want is a job, a GF, drugs, sex, going out and seeing some good mates. Lessee, will literature help there?

You claim, but are willing to provide no evidence. You won't even answer a simple question I asked, let me try again "Get a mate, have a comfortable life..." - what else?

Life is not awash with deep questions, most stuff in life is trivial and straightforwards.

[logarhythmic]

I think you are missing the point of art if you expect rigour, though.

[trebbble]

No rigour?

> Show me that liberal arts types are on average more ethical than science types

Liberal arts types? Science types? More ethical?! I could pick out more but that was a fun, dense one, and anyway I don't want to engage on that level because I don't think it'd help this exchange a bit. Frustrating indeed.

Physician, et c., et c.

I'm not trying to argue, anyway—I answered one reasonable (if a touch hostile) clarifying question and have since been trying to communicate that "recite entire fields of the humanities to me" is unreasonable in this context. How would you react to my demanding proof that science is as good at getting at the truth as you seem to think it is? (incidentally, outside this for-the-sake-of-argument analogy, I do probably largely agree with you on that, so this isn't intended as an actual point of contention) If you've got the patience of a saint, maybe you point out some examples of evident successes, you explain the process—but I say that's not enough, examples of apparent successes aren't proof, and so on. At some point you probably ought to tell me to go read a damn book or take a few courses (i.e. get an education in the thing I'm dismissing but also have so many questions about). It'd be crazy to expect you to produce a philosophy of science course (at a minimum—we could, if I were obstinate, keep digging deeper forever) over HN posts.

My usual approach if a whole lot of apparently-smart-people-with-seemingly-decent-taste think something is valuable and that certain things are true about it and I don't see it is to assume I lack the necessary education and that if I want to be able to understand it and have an informed opinion on it, I need to seek out that education, and to engage with that thing a whole bunch even if it's unpleasant and seems pointless or even bad at first.

I picked that attitude up from... literature and philosophy, largely. I've found it useful. I've never gotten over that initial barrier by asking questions to which I think I already have the answers, on a web forum. Not even (hahaha) this one. In the case of the arts the usual argument for their value, as far as what convinces people, is precisely that kind of direct engagement, perhaps with some guidance from a teacher.

Practically no-one arrives at the conclusion that the arts are valuable and express truths or provide an improving education by reading some scientific paper. Yet, so very many people do reach that conclusion, plenty of them a hell of a lot smarter than me, and they keep doing it well into the scientific revolution—including tons of scientists ("science type"—smh). So the best I can write is that, if you actually want to be convinced, that's the thing to do.

What you seem to be doing instead is asking me to prove to a skeptic's satisfaction that general relativity is true, purely via slam poetry and using only the vocabulary contained in Doctor Seuss books. Be pretty fucking impressive if I pulled that off, right? Wrong tool, wrong approach, if that skeptic's actually interested in being convinced—not that such a thing couldn't be good, or even useful, if such a work existed, just as some kind of scientific examination of the value of the arts might be good and useful, but in either case I doubt it would suffice to convince anyone on its own.

But, I repeat yet again, if things are going swimmingly for you, disregarding the possibility of valuable truth or insight existing in the arts or their being improving, keep going as you are. Seriously. The arts are largely a kind of exercise in working through our collective existential confusion and trauma, and if you don't see the need for that, holy shit, that's great—or if you do see the need for it, and have genuinely sought comfort and answers and guidance across the liberal arts and found all but science wanting, well, that's too bad but is also an entirely fine place to end up.

At any rate, if you want to see if anyone has tried to address your questions from a scientific perspective, you're on the Internet. Have you gone looking for that information? (maybe you have, I really don't know—hell, I could well be communicating with a top researcher in some very-relevant, specialized discipline for all I know)

[zasdffaa]

You have the right to talk about confusion and trauma when you have had your life (and your siblings lives also) destroyed by child abuse. You, with your nice mental health, and your lovely stable relationships and peace of mind, something I've never had. Ever had half a lifetime of clinical depression, the real shit, like blackness eating you from the inside out and it hurts like you can't imagine, no, not "having a bad day" depression. You talk about insights into human nature but there are some insights you have never had and never will and don't know how fortunate you are, you with your sodding self-indulgent burblings of 'confusion' and 'trauma', so STFU you have no experience of what other's life can be like and you never want to know that life can be a curse. Just shut up.

[TheCoelacanth]

> Show me that liberal arts types are on average more ethical than science types

Are interest in science and interest in liberal arts mutually exclusive now? Anecdotally, I would say that the two interests are positively correlated.

As to evidence of the benefits of reading fiction, there has been a fair amount of research done in that area[1].

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190523-does-reading-fic...

[trebbble]

> Anecdotally, I would say that the two interests are positively correlated.

The physical sciences (and social sciences) are core pillars of the liberal arts, so... yeah, I'd hope so.

[zasdffaa]

> Are interest in science and interest in liberal arts mutually exclusive now

I didn't say they were (or did I, it's getting late), but as for your evidence, that is what I was after, an actual fact, thanks so much!

[dougmwne]

Before there was science, technology, math and statistical inference, there were our dreams and our stories about a world that could be something other than what it was at that very moment for that very individual.

Have you noticed how many Star Trek gadgets are real things you can now buy in a store? That does not happen in some inevitable scientific process that will eventually produce obvious predefined advancements. It happens because our art and our philosophy inspires our science and our engineering. We are what we dreamed we could be.

You are sitting on top of a very large mountain of human achievement in the humanities. Law, government, peace, prosperity, human rights, ethics. These things all spring from the humanities. They were all invented before the scientific method. We would be still living in caves without them.

[zasdffaa]

Oh god this hurts. The same sloppy arguing. Ok

I was talking about literature. You just expanded it a whole lot, which diffuses the point I was making. I don't think this is a tactic, I just don't think you can focus.

Nonethless, "It happens because our art and our philosophy [1] inspires our science and our engineering [2]" You conveniently assume [1] and [2] are divorced and each lies with two entirely divided castes. They are aspects of the same.

"Law, government, peace, prosperity, human rights, ethics. These things all spring from the humanities"

Oh lord. Law is from human nature. Desire for justice/fairness exists even in monkeys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Peace - this comes from humanities? Justify this.

ethics - nothing to do with law apparently, see above.

prosperity - nothing to do with science, right.

I've had enough of this crap. You can't debate, you don't want to look for common understanding. It's a kind of arrogance.