The issue of the humanities is muddled by scientists themselves who are victims of a system that endows prosperity but narrow specialization. That neglecting the humanities is a species of folly can be seen from an examination of my work on the macro effect: World History and the Eonic Effect. Scientists study theories and models, and these are very precise but limited perspectives. As we ascend the scale theories suddenly crap out and we confront the realm of models, at best, and then mostly nothing but particulars, i.e. subjects that like the humanities are a mix of literary, aesthetic, ethical and other elusive factors. The crap out point seems to be theories of evolution a sphere where all these trained scientists are fooled by darwinism. What has gone wrong?
But more generally look at the ‘macro effect’: we actually see a case of mixed elements, requiring the study of historical models, if not theories, and the examination, calculation and evaluation of such models via the painstaking study of thousands of independent subjects. There are no easy equations here, only painstaking ‘model boundary’ study via bibliographies of hundreds to thousands per zone plus texts that have to be read, and which liberal arts majors default to reading, because the moron science jocks can’t read books beyond the physics manual trows they are feed with to service the technological/capitalist profit zones (the latter is a bit harsh, are high IQ physics majors really morons?)
The distinction of science and humanities is thus completely illusory, beyond an obvious reciprocal spectrum of subjects.
Look at the macro model in three separate zones, the Axial Greek, the Indic Axial interval, and the Israelite Axial: this is a small subset of the larger macro universe with Sumerian, Egyptian, five/sic Axial, and the modern transitions (plus everything in between).
The Greek Axial requires a good hundred books on literature, art, politics, science history, with stubbornly complex texts like Homer, the Axial poets, all the way to Greek tragedy, subjects it would be nice to study in ancient Greek. The Indic time slice requires study of buddhism at it source, the Jains, and archaic Hindu Advaita, plus whatever socio-economic data is available. The Israelite requires an equal study plus a metaphysical crisis of categories trying to understand what really happened. All these zones rapidly expand exponentially to their middle eras and their complex events and histories. But the basic model requires the attempt to study hundreds of subjects and histories. You cannot say that physics is the key to understanding this. Baloney. Nor can you say this project is irrelevant because it isn’t science. Moronic thinking….
Now look at modernity, the space from the sixteenth to nineteenth century, to start: you must, to map out the boundaries of this ‘dynamical entity’ study the Reformation, the history of science, science itself, the history of revolutions, the birth of democracy/liberations, the philosophic history climaxing in German classical philosophy in three brands, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, the Enlightenment and Romantic movement, the birth economic reasoning the birth of capitalism/communism, the Industrial Revolution…what did I forget? It is not enough to say this must be done by specialists. Of course. But the dynamical or eonic question requires non-specialist survey of the latter plus many more subjects.
We can see at once that a continuum of subjects exists here and that liberal arts majors are the only ones who could handle its complexity.
I don’t think liberal arts majors could do much better, but the failure of scientists to see their mistake in darwinism is absolutely shocking and shows their method and education is dysfunctional.