Why is there such a division between the Arts and Science?

Why is there such a division between the Arts and Science?

Many humanities students have disdain for STEM and many STEM students have disdain for the humanities. Is this some sort of Jewish plot or is there a deeper reason for this?

As per the board please touch on Literature/Philosophy in any responses.

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/25303916?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

there isn't, really. it's an artificial dichotomy perpetuated by butthurt pop-thinkers on boards ike this one because they're afraid that their special deep thoughts don't actually mean anything

>Why is there such a division between the Arts and Science?

There isn't really. Maybe in make-believe online world the argument is perputated by idiots who never went to college, or dropped out their first semesters because they were "too smart for it."

>Many humanities students have disdain for STEM and many STEM students have disdain for the humanities

No. I have a STEM degree, never met a single actual physical STEM student who hated humanities. Seen plenty of meme threads online about it, never met an actual person with the opinion though.

It's called getting a grip on reality. There used to be a saying, way back in the 90s or so, "I read it on the internet, so it HAS to be true," said sarcastically.

This just isn't true, visit a college campus in the modern day Grandpa.

I have two STEM degrees and I can tell you that I absolutely hate STEM. It is the cause of every problem.

Yeah....most stem students hate stem....that's a pretty different thing from stems hating humanities or vice versa, however.

Only meme "scientists" have a disdain for arts and humanities. People like Einstein were fond of both.

I'm not STEM.
Hardly, Einstein and the like have an orientalist's fondness for the field. He's like a tourist that speaks with his camera.

This is true. There are some utter fedoras in pleb degrees like CS, but most grow out of it pretty fast. Maybe don't go to a diploma mill.

>I have two STEM degrees
>I'm not STEM

You sure?

ja, ganz

The problem stems from our humanity.

It's a product of the increasing specialization of roles in society. I'm a STEM major who spends all my free time on pretentious philosophy and art, and I'm constantly lambasted from both communities if they find out I don't really differentiate between STEM and humanities. Of course the average person doesn't care, but there's a surprisingly large amount of people who take it as a personal offense if I dare ruin the sanctity of their insular field. And contrary to popular portrayal, the humanities are just as guilty of this as STEM, although primarily from media and philosophy majors.

But in STEM, outside of the softer or more obscure fields, the negative view of humanities is pretty evenly spread out, and concentrates more in physics/engineering/math. Of course they also believe everything in STEM outside of their respective field is unnecessary and can be reduced to their field, so its not necessarily directed at humanities.

>just because someone likes the arts, doesn't mean they like the arts
What did he mean by this?

Google 'orientalism'.

i dont think einstein's humanism is orientalist insofar as orientalism involves pillaging and impoverishing the field of study in addition to fetishizing it. i think a physicist's philosophy fetish can really only manifest as a healthy check on assumptions, and an interest in the world beyond its representation on the chalkboard.

came here to post this

Stemcucks cant stand the fact women prefer broke artists to rich nerds

Women can't stand that nobody is attracted to old hags

Mostly just undergrad pissing contests.

You either grow out of it or have people roll their eyes at you.

When asked why most novelists are afraid to use science in their fiction, Joseph Mcelroy said this:

"But it also seems to me that many writers don't let themselves take science and technology seriously because they see these areas conflicting with the human imagination. They see science as anti-human. I don't. Science and technology offer forms by which we can see some things clearly; their experimental and measuring methods, their patterns larger than life or smaller than sight, beckon us out of ourselves. If you assume your assumptions are only one of many possible views, maybe one day you find a way to drop, say, the reassuring habit of scale models and conceive distorted models, a model you can visualize only in fragments that the mind must leap to unite."

Full interview is here: jstor.org/stable/25303916?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

Thought some of you might find this interesting, but the answer to ops question is this

Lol

This is only confined to a small but loud minority on the internet, for the most part. Most STEM majors readily admit their ignorance on the humanities and often express a desire to do something about it. Most humanities majors lament the fact that they are poor in math or the sciences and also want to do something about it.

This is true for the most part. I'm in engineering and most of my peers don't care for humanities because they're bad at them. They want to be better though. Only a few people (the dumb ones, imo) actually have some sense of superiority to students of the humanities.

Only pseuds and undergrads see the "divide". Good scientists recognise the methods of philosophy and the arts, and good artists have respect for the benefits of science.

>many STEM students have disdain for the humanities
Not in my experience. I suppose it's true for engineers, but they're also often disdainful of science and maths - look at how many crackpot pseudoscientists are engineers.

STEM students don't have a disregard for humanities, although sadly they often don't really care and have very poor literary knowledge.

Liberal arts fags, on the other hand, harbor some kind of hatred towards STEM. I think it's mostly because liberal arts departments tend to refuges for the moronic (there are smart people pursuing liberal arts degrees, but most of them are idiots) and thus their tiny brains are simply incapable of ever understanding STEM subjects. This frustrates them and they find solace in delusions of being "above STEM".

>Most humanities majors lament the fact that they are poor in math or the sciences and also want to do something about it.
False.
Wrong. Science has no benefits.
STEM is simple enough for literal children. Liberal arts includes sciences you fucking idiot. Stop talking, you've never even been to an institution of higher education.

bait

>science has no benefis
200 years of science has changed humanity's material conditions more than millenia of religion or philosphy. Your computer works because of science, not fucking phenomenology. Get wrecked.

anything i dont like is le fishy meme
Not true.
My computer does not work, you just think it does.

Absolutely delusional.

>False.
False.

Modern universities and universal education.

I'm a humanities student and i've never felt that "hate" people say about STEM.
I have some classes with people doing STEM and they don't look like they hate humanities or anything like that.
It's more of a internet thing.

Because STEM students go through rigorous courses while art students just wank off and have easy material that will never actually get them a career. STEM students actually pity art students because they know they are just wasting time and money.

It's the same reason why it's no longer possible to be a renaissance man.

Not sure if bait or just a frustrated STEM student looking for someone to blame.

Wrong.
>STEMshit
OMG WHY CANT I JUST GLIDE THROUGH CALCULUS WHILE SKIPPING EVERY OTHER CLASS AND BEING HUNG-OVER WHEN I ACTUALLY SHOW UP
>an hour of homework a day, tops

a fucking Veeky Forums thread on the division between art and science and no one is going to mention c.p. snow? read The Two Cultures

stem students may have a disdain for the humanities, but most established scientists and engineers have no such disdain. there are entire scientific journals devoted to incorporating humanities into stem. i would even go so far as to say that to be considered a great person by most members of the scientific community, you cannot only be a great scientist or engineer or whatever, but you must also be able to do more, more within stem but also within the humanities. you have to be well-rounded to be considered truly great.

whereas in the humanities, there isn't even a requirement of interdisciplinary knowledge for greatness. if you are a great painter, there's no pressure for you to also be well-read, let alone a pressure for you to also be able to solve basic algebra problems.

the modern polymath is just not drawn to the humanities because they've lobotomized themselves. instead, he resigns himself to stem. thus, stem has maintained its aspiration to multitalentedness, while the humanities have lost it.

not a comment on individual english undergrads so please no dog pile. most students in stem are also retarded, they just grow out of it because their competitive requirement demands it, unlike that of the humanities.

*competitive environment demands it

what a mess of a post
apply yourself

They make 'humanities' subservient to their idolatry. They have an orientalists interest.

STEM isn't competitive, not even remotely. It's a factory.

Blame the age of enlightenments and romanticism.

who is "they"? what is their idolatry? did you just learn about orientalism in this thread? why exactly do you feel qualified to say that stem isn't competitive? have you ever tried to get a paper published? ever submitted a grant proposal? participated in lab research?

actually, do you know anything about stem at all? why are literature forums, not just this one, but most, full of people studying engineering, science, and math? why aren't there any english students in my robotics club? what is the natural logarithm of 1?

no accusations, just curiosity. maybe you're right. though i doubt it

are you ugly

depends on how desperate you are. i will say there's a reason i'm on lit and not on some dude's yacht by mykonos

Are you sure? I hate the STEMfags who hate humanities, and vice versa, but science has given us stuff like vaccines which are really useful for the humanity.

>sperging out this hard

Not at all. Nothing science does is useful.

Pretty much this. Scientists are becoming more and more like technicians while the humanities only visit reality occasionally. It's really quite sad.

>reality
No such thing exists.

go fuck yourself.

I'd slap you in the face if you said that in front of me

>not caring about something so hard that you take time out of your day just to insult someone for caring about it

*autistic screeching*

>caring about cancer

I meant that in a loving way

i hate that autistic division

In my experience it's the TE in STEM that's the problem. They were always incredibly quick to deride anything outside their major. The science and maths people were fine.

Holy fuck this. Why are so many computer engineering majors so far up their own asses?

kek

Here is my two cents:

I have known several people on either side of the fence and I think I understand why there might be a divide; I think that the big separation is largely due to the personalities that either discipline attract. People tend to find certain paths of thinking comfortable, therefore they often think in these patterns. Because of this people tend to congregate into different types of Majors based on their preferred way of thinking (or what they consider to be their [perhaps marketable] strengths). This may lead to what, to most observers, seem like a very even split into the 'logical' and 'emotional' disciplines. The truth that I believe others are getting at is that the 'cleft' between the disciplines isn't quite definite as before thought. I don't think that 'there isn't any cleft is the best answer either, because there is some separation. I think that the 'seperation' is mainly due to people splitting into groups that they find comfortable.

These anons are barking up the right tree. As I mentioned, I have some friends in various fields. The issue tends to be that they are not 'necessarily' averse (but could be) to the 'opposing' disciplines, but they may just not be competent enough in them to provide decent knowledge, product, ect. of the other disciplines. Back to my main point, I think that personality plays a huge role in this; I believe that someone will not be inclined to pursue a field of interest if they don't prefer the kind of thought necessary to do so (usually).

STEMsperg spotted

I'm foreign languages friendo

That's STEM.

[citation needed]

Because some STEM majors believe having a STEM degree is a guaranteed well paying job that will contribute to society, while arts majors will languish in McJobs and bum around. Luckily it's mostly the annoying minority who espouse this, and most STEM majors I've met are either not particularly interested in the arts, or respect it enough. I'd argue the best scientists and researchers are the ones best in touch with their humanity actually.

I got mine and I loathe STEM. I like the aesthetic of it, mathematical beauty and what not. But the people and the culture are the worst.

>Nothing science does is useful
Why do you behave like a blind retard who only spews "No, no, nothing science does is useful". Where are your arguments?
Vaccines literally saved a ton of people, and that's only one example.

>I'd argue the best scientists and researchers are the ones best in touch with their humanity actually
post argument

v nice

>tfw browse both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums regularly

it comes down to a difference in thought process.

Quick little story to illustrate:

When I was in college I majored in theatre (yep, faggot, I get it) and was lighting designing a show. I had a clutch of lab students who were taking stagecraft to fulfill their gen ed requirement for the arts, and I could basically use them to do the bitch work I didn't want to do personally. At the load in for the show I was posting out the spaces that the instruments needed to be placed in and where cables needed to be run to ensure they were in the correct circuits. A lab student interrupts me and asks why one source four had a cable run past two circuits to get to the one I wanted. I explained about how those lines were meant for something else, yadayadayada. He then asks me why I didn't just hard patch them to be different circuits, moving the whole scheme and grid around. I asked him if he was a STEM major and he replied, a little shocked, yes. I then told him all about the age of the system, the skill needed to do such work, the fact that other people needed this set up to remain constant, etc. He still didn't see it my way. Finally I asked the question that really summed up everything.

"How long do you think it'll take you to hard patch everything?"

"Me? Probably only an hour or two."

I turned to another lab student:

"How long will it take you to run a cable from there to there?"

"Like three seconds," the student replied.

"There's your answer," I said to the STEM kid.

He still didn't get it.

On the level of university degrees in the current year and the average graduate, both sides have merit.

Given a basic capability for abstract thinking a STEM degree is about having the patience for rote learning of utterly trivial shit and the methodology to produce your own utterly trivial shit aka "talent for abstract critical thinking". Sadly no talent is involved. It's make or break depending on IQ and patience/inclination.

Getting good grades in the humanities is idiot-proof and probably 80% of graduates couldn't show why (a+b)(a-b)=a^2-b^2.

Sad!

i cannot believe how eloquently you have captured the absolute insufferability of the stage tech archetype. you've managed to distill every horrible experience anyone has ever had with a techie, the transcendent arrogance, the obliviousness, the inexplicable self-importance. it's uncanny how this character manages to assign so much significance to his knowledge of a lighting system that can be mastered in an afternoon. you have really created here, for the reader, an impression of the realistic imbecile. bravo, user. this is truly the work of a master of satire and postmodern theory. please keep posting your work on this board, we could do with some more examples of superb writing such as this.

>if you are a great painter, there's no pressure for you to also be well-read
That is just false my dude, I'm doing my masters in art history and a bunch of people I share some classes with are doing their masters in visual arts, and as far as I can see, they have to be much more aware of the "science of art" than me and other more theoretical students do.

Like, in my situation, most of what's asked from me is familiarity with art history and historiography, aesthetics niggas gotta know about philosophy as a whole, painters have to know about both, critic and what's currently happening on a local AND a global level.

>Getting good grades in the humanities is idiot-proof
Absolutely wrong. FIRST YEAR English here has an average GPA of about 2.4. A good class, according to the professors, gets about a 2.7.

i would not consider a painter who has read a lot of books about painting to be well-read, and if your area of study is art history, you're not well-read just because you read a lot about art history. reading a lot of informative texts doesn't mean you understand or appreciate literature. it doesn't mean you get to add "literature" to your list of proficiencies.

the bigger point is that successful artists' identities begin and end with art. science and math don't even factor into their worldview, because nobody who is interested in science, math and art would even consider entering the modern humanities in their current state. it's certainly an option to be a stunted retard with no knowledge of the humanities in stem as well, but it's not nearly as ubiquitous as the opposite. there's a stigma associated with it that doesn't exist in the humanities

People who read about art history will be educated in aesthetics too you dope.

>mfw I'm dogshit at coding and math but have conned my way to having almost all A's until this semester and am almost finished with a CS degree
>mfw I don't have the courage to just drop it all for an English major I actually enjoy

>being a stemtard

...

Same. There really is a lot to learn from both fields. Humanities for the soul, STEM for the mind.

Now, let's list a couple of things that are pretty wrong with your post:
First of all, no one I've ever met in my academical life so far only reads stuff inside their area, not even my CS friends who lead Forgotten Realms novels.
Second, you have probably never read a single art history book if you think they're just ordering trends in art by time, even Vasari, the founder of the discipline, was already talking a lot about (what the renascentists understood as) aesthetics and critic (which are different fields, despite the fact that you've lumped them all with art history).
Third, the way you understand artists is extremely outdated, and ignoring a lot of modern art (modern, not even contemporary), stuff like Metzger and De Stijl come to mind as art with some sort of scientific influence (and, since you're such a huge pleb, you have no idea how much chemistry you have to know about before you can even consider yourself an engraver), and so on.

You try to come off as reasonable but you just sound like another stemtard trying to say you detain the keys to REAL knowledge, when it simply isn't true. I could tell hours and hours of my stem-friends absolute plebbery but you'd just dismiss them as anedoctes, but this won't change the fact that even people on a phD level knowledge of stem aren't positivist retards.

>be me
>study geography (stem) and sociology (humanities)
>day of 'hardest sociology exam you will ever face'
>professor goes around with a colleague
>gives out exams in this 500 seat room
>students talk furiously with their exams in Front of them
>Professor leaves the room and comes back with a coffee
>tells the room to be quiet
>students talk furiously in a more quiet way but still fucking obviously
>Professor does not care

>I almost score 100%
>'Hey user The next exams will be quiet easier next year. Glad that we both made it'
>Quiet sociology that month and took economics
>humanities are literally the worst thing ever

t. stemfag

Sociology is a social science, which is STEM.

Your fault for going to a factory school.

sociology is a terrible leftie meme

'Social science' is a rebranding of 'humanities' specifically designed to trick idiots like you into believing that.

You are apparently not answering any of his questions. You must not be a STEM major or interested in objective truth.

The natural logarithm of 1 is 0 by the way.

>making claims
>saying what is
>gives no reasons
>believed this to be a sufficient reply to the question
>being this retarded

underrated post