One of the Basic Principles of Science is to have some level of skepticism about the results of a hypothesis. If it wasn't for this skepticism, there would be no experimentation and all hypotheses would be treated as facts. However, philosophers may bring a skepticism beyond WHAT results an experiment could show and consider WHY the experiment may be moral or immoral to begin with. Countless scientific discoveries have been made at a terrible cost (experiments on Prisoners of War, for example), indicating that not all pursuit of higher knowledge is justified by the benefits the results could bring.

The increase of technology surrounding machines has and will bring about serious moral questions. Films like AI: Artificial Intelligence and The Terminator give us perspectives on the complexities surrounding highly intelligent machines, but even in our modern world we are on the cusp of tremendous technological breakthroughs in robotics and remote control. The US military saw exponential increases in lethal drone use during the Obama administration, a new trend that necessitates careful consideration of both the number of lives that can be saved through precision action against dangerous persons and the implications of having hands-off methods of killing with such ease.

This COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example of the limits of a singular perspective against a complex problem. A purely scientific approach to the crisis would likely deem complete shut downs of our entire global economy in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. A humanistic approach might look at the social and psychological harms of extended isolation. The effective solutions that some nations have put in place involve a delicate balance of trust in the scientific processes as well as an understanding of human nature and how people are likely to behave.

I wonder, as AI and machines become increasingly advanced, if a STEM era will also close and humanities re-emerge as a dominant field. Consider how much AI has freed people in creative fields, with much of the technical work now done in the "black box" of the machine, with the user having little STEM knowledge themselves. A few people will be needed to work them and create them, but just like computers started as tools for the priestly class of scientists, they are now every day objects for people who can't spot the difference between SoCs and ICs (like me, as I had to Google those terms)

I believe here is where Humanities are most important. To quote Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park, "You were so preoccupied with whether you could that you didn't stop to think whether you should." The middle of the twentieth century showed us the horrors of pure science: Eugenics, Nuclear bombs, industrialized factory work. Science has no morality; that is something we create. Who we are and WHY we create and learn is something that STEM can not do alone.

I don't recall who said it (Dawkins?), but someone said something to the effect of, "Any philosophy that does not consider the field of genetics and neuroscience as part of their conclusions is dead". I would agree that, while Humanities and soft sciences are valuable, they can not become separate from STEM and can include them in their thesis. This doesn't render the field irrelevant, or even require that they fully understand the full nuances of a neuroscience degree, but that they need to be aware of the results of experiments and keep up to date on the literature.

I think one of the reasons that STEM fields are becoming more popular is because they seem to do a better job of answering questions that we have. I think that people prefer to ask questions that there can be concrete answers for. Many of the questions asked by humanists and artists have no concrete answers, and people probably find that unsatisfying.

I have heard and seen how this split has affected how people treat each other at universities. I have seen a lot of STEM students be antagonistic and condescending towards humanities students.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say the future of our humanity is at stake. But, I guess that depends on how you define humanity. It is clear that humans are relying more and more on technology. We spend most of our time looking at screens, especially now that many people work online. But, does relying on machines make us "part human part machine"? I'm not sure.

This question is another that brings about the importance of language and deeply considering the definitions of words and their implications. When we talk about reality, what are we really talking about? What may be physically present and "real" for one person, may not necessarily be as "real" for the next person. This is especially true given as there are things that we believe are physically real and yet we have no quantifiable way of measuring them, like dark matter, or emotions. In areas such as this I believe it is even more important for both sides to come together and share perspectives and learn from one another. In the end, more knowledge and understanding, a broader perspective, can only be a good thing.

The split in the two "cultures" becomes quite evident when you observe the differences in language used. This is something that I have noticed firsthand in several science classes that I have taken. The implications of word usage differs based on the subject you are taking. Where someone well versed in English and rhetoric may read a phrase in one way, someone in the STEM fields may read the same phrase and see a different meaning. I think this makes it all the more evident that it is important to have an educational background that touches at least briefly in all areas.

This is where you'll post your own annotations. These annotations might be reactions, objections, connections you make, examples that help illustrate a point, etc…

Read slowly and carefully and aim for at least 5-8 substantial annotations overall.

This is where you'll post your own annotations. These annotations might be reactions, objections, connections you make, examples that help illustrate a point, etc...

You won't read every word of this lecture, but speed up and slow down as you see fit, but aim for at least 5-8 substantial annotations overall.