Is the Blockland Forums: more of a science guy or a history buff?

[sir dooble]

The question should be "humanities vs science"

Humanities is such a wide field though.
It includes History, English Language (linguistics, etymology, etc), English Literature (Poetry, Prose, etc), Geography, Philosophy, Anthropology, Religion, Psychology, Law, Sociology, Politics, and more.

Science covers 3 things, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Yes, there's a myriad of more precise fields of study in each of those, and even across them.

But the likelihood is that a micro-biologist has some appreciation for the field of nuclear physics.
Likewise a classical historian has appreciation for modern history.
But your classical historian, like your micro-biologist, probably doesn't give much of a toss about poetry.

A scientist probably cares for all science, but an historian probably doesn't care for all humanities.

[Ad Bot]

[C-Zech Chrome Ind.]

Humanities is such a wide field though.
It includes History, English Language (linguistics, etymology, etc), English Literature (Poetry, Prose, etc), Geography, Philosophy, Anthropology, Religion, Psychology, Law, Sociology, Politics, and more.

Science covers 3 things, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Yes, there's a myriad of more precise fields of study in each of those, and even across them.

But the likelihood is that a micro-biologist has some appreciation for the field of nuclear physics.
Likewise a classical historian has appreciation for modern history.
But your classical historian, like your micro-biologist, probably doesn't give much of a toss about poetry.

A scientist probably cares for all science, but an historian probably doesn't care for all humanities.

Very good point.  Bouncing from that, I must add that history and psychology serve as very good corrective filters when doing a scientific task.  Many good examples can be found with mathematicians in WWII, correcting psychological biases in order to reach more effective conclusions (like armouring planes where there was no evidence of damage rather than armouring the parts that got swiss cheesed, because the planes that get shot in the untouched places never came back and the ones that never got shot there but could survive getting their fuselages effectively acupunctured usually did)  The normal conclusion that the generals usually made was to armour the swiss cheesed parts, but this is called the survivorship bias, which got in the way of science.

You need to bypass yourself constantly in order to make sure that your findings are not biased.