Without a foundation in the humanities, science collapses.
That is the thesis of this paper. My argument is that the humanities, otherwise called "liberal arts", provide two pivotal supports, without which science flounders.
The first of these is English language and the arts of writing and communications. The second is the general principles of scientific methodology provided by logic.
English expression
Let us look first at English. Anyone familiar with installing computer software will have noticed the notorious bad English in software manuals or read-me files. These are put together by people with little training in the humanities. They not only leave the reader confused about how to use certain functions of the program, but also point to a certain confusion in the minds of the designers that becomes apparent where the program becomes user-unfriendly.
The ability to express oneself in clear English is necessary for the presentation of scientific discoveries, since English is the language of science world-wide. Any article or talk that has shoddy English or that rambles off point is not going to be published or given attention, even if there is valuable scientific information buried in the verbiage.
English and good style are also necessary for the teaching of science, both in the classroom and in the presentation of texts.
Again, if science is the engine of the economic world, no scientific applications can be marketed unless they is well packaged and well presented to the corporate world that will pay for them.
Lastly, science cannot develop very far without endowment, which mainly comes from the government. No one can lobby for government support, or get a grant for a project, without a well presented proposal. This cannot be put together without a solid training in the use of English.
Methodology
The humanities also provide a general framework for scientific methodology in logic. Aristotle's series on logic includes two books on how to solve scientific problems. The first is the Topics, which tells how to examine opinions, collect and collate facts, and search for a solution. This is the dialectical stage of science. The second book is the Posterior Analytics, which expounds the general requirements for any scientific demonstration.
Each science has its own particular methodology, but to be efficacious it must be built on the general principles of methodology, which come under the study of logic.
In the dialectical phase, the researcher must first survey all the important literature on the subject, assemble the various discoveries previous investigators have made, point out where they were mistaken or unsure, note the tentative opinions they held, and point out what remains to be determined.
This dialectical stage paves the way to the researcher's own solution and gives it a preliminary credence.
But that is not enough. The research must get to the heart of the matter. That is the discovery and presentation of the proper cause of an ascertained phenomenon.
It is not enough simply to produce statistics. A recent report said that tests of hundreds of pregnant women show that when they drink a little wine it is good for the baby. First, one could contest whether other variables could account for the results. Secondly, if we grant that the result is true, we would like to know exactly how the alcohol helps the baby. What kind of chain reaction does it cause? Maybe it just makes the mother relax, and that can come about by a variety of means. The point is that statistical reports such as these are not science, but only tentative theories, because they do not point out the proper cause for the better health of the baby.
This is like the claims of traditional medicine. All sorts of people will swear that dogon yaro cures malaria. That may be true. But how? Thank God, Professor Okogun has devoted a lifetime to isolating the active agents in traditional medicine. That is real science.
Such work is similar to the findings of genetics, where the exact gene or DNA component can be pointed out as accounting for any peculiarity in the structure of an organism.
Conclusion
A humanities trained person is better equipped for problem solving and presenting or selling his solutions than someone trained in the sciences without any grounding in the humanities.
Moreover, the training one receives in humanities broadens a person's mentality, so that, even in fields outside his own specialty, he is able to differentiate good research from bad research, and true science from theories ranging from superstition to highly probable observations.
Furthermore, the same liberal broadening of mentality enables the person not only to be a master of his own specialty, but also to acquire a moderate competency in whatever field he takes an interest in, so that he becomes a kind of polymath.
These are the benefits of the humanities. If science is to prosper in this country, we need to make sure that science students are well grounded in the humanities.