I'm not entirely sure if these are rhetorical questions or if the author is genuinely curious about the limitations of human knowledge. However, there was a time that humans thought the moon was a God, lesser than the God of the Sun, and the idea of travelling to the moon was both incomprehensible and laughable. Now look where humans are. I tend to assume that that there is no limit to human knowledge, rather, there are probably questions yet to be answered that we haven't even thought of.

While I understand the appeal of ring someone who can both do the research and discover the questions that need to be asked, I can't help but question the logic of eliminating the people who may be able to ask better questions. I don't think we should spread people so thin.

When I was in Chemistry 1 alongside people who would one day graduate as engineers and scientists, the running joke was "it doesn't matter how bad my report is, everyone knows engineers can't write." The professors did their best to encourage good writing habits, but their lectures fell on deaf ears, and some of their misguided attempts to instruct me on writing led to an awful habit of passive-voice that I still struggle to eliminate. The idea of eradicating humanities majors in favor of these students, without proper instruction, makes me shudder.

This is an interesting perspective on humanities as it relates to science. It's almost as if science is asking "how?" and humanities is asking "why?" Though, as we move to an era where children are learning more than anyone in history ever thought possible, I find it odd that the gap between science and humanities is increasing. It seems to me that we should be bridging the two ideas together to make sense of the information we are discovering through science. If we discover through science that we are not alone in this universe, who is going to explain these concepts to children? Who is going to document these findings so that the information is available to future generations? Who will decide what we do with this information? Humanities and science are so closely linked that it seems illogical to downplay either one to bring the other up.

Embarrassingly, I had to look up the definition of this word. According to Oxford dictionary, it means "a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned." I had always heard that people write at a much lower level than they read, and I think it't critical to point out that, even as a senior in college, I am constantly learning to read and write. Though I am walking away from this discussion with the knowledge of a new word, I require more practice before I will be comfortable using this word in my writing.

Furthermore, as I was able to retrieve this definition at the click of a button, it makes me reflect on how much of the divide between humanities and STEM is caused by technology. Perhaps people don't respect humanities majors because they believe the ability to understand vocabulary and write well is available on the internet.

I find it kind of interesting and symbolic that to discuss a field of education that is becoming outdated, the author used a word which is outdated. I wonder if it was intentional.