Ah, but you did, and you stepped in something that a lot of scientists (and devs) resent, having others assume that they are robots, without heart or passion or insight. What you said was even worse, one group of people are trying to understand "what it means to be human", implying that the other group of people is not. It's literally dehumanizing, and I called you out, and now you're responding with a puerile "is to".
I have two degrees, one in physics, one in philosophy, and with this response I realize I need to review the literature on expected value.
That's not how I read his comment. Somewhat puzzled as to how you arrived at your reading.
Humanities are the disciplines that focus on the question of what it is to be human. Sciences are the disciplines that focus on understanding physical reality, and in an indirect way the changes in our understanding of nature and physical reality do impact the discourse in Humanities.
None of that even remotely means anyone not involved in humanities is a "robot". You resent caricature of "devs" as "robots, without heart or passion or insight" and that is a false picture of devs, agreed. But that has nothing to do with the question of the two cultures.
The two cultures (actually the author managed to find a 3rd in "engineering" in his rather rambling rant) are ultimately about "tools". Here the tools in question are 'cognitive tools'.
The cultures are really cultures that grow around distinct cognitive tools.
Ah, but you did, and you stepped in something that a lot of scientists (and devs) resent, having others assume that they are robots, without heart or passion or insight. What you said was even worse, one group of people are trying to understand "what it means to be human", implying that the other group of people is not. It's literally dehumanizing, and I called you out, and now you're responding with a puerile "is to".
I have two degrees, one in physics, one in philosophy, and with this response I realize I need to review the literature on expected value.