When equations meet empathy

Introduction :

In terms of significance, “Science > Humanities” seems to be the generally agreed-upon consensus. And it’s not just limited to that strange orthodox family across your street -

It’s everyone.

From our grandparents’ era to the newest tech-savvy generation, humanities have been society’s favourite afterthought.

WHY?

Two words — “unemployable myth”. There is a misconception that a humanities degree is a certified ticket to placement at Mcdonalds. Commonly regarded as having no sincere “practical use”, humanities fail to engrave an impression of offering stable, high-paying jobs. The STEM field instead inveigles industries with their direct market-driven priorities.

As a society, we celebrate things we can measure, and quietly dismiss those we can’t. Unfortunately, the type of critical thinking and social deduction that the humanities promote succumb greatly to the latter. As a result, there is less funding directed towards advancing this field, causing universities to re-evaluate their humanities branches.

The silent recession of this field has been further aggrandised by the withdrawal in its graduates — a staggering decline of 25% from 2012 to 2020. If this wasn’t enough, the media enjoys pushing the narrative that every single humanities degree deserves a place in the “Top 10 most worthless degrees in 2026” tier list, orchestrated by journalists themselves.

However, while reading this, a guilty thought may creep into the back of your mind — “Why is it truly such an issue?”. Looking around, you see the IoT invading your home with smart devices, AI engines at your disposal, making life ever more comfortable. There is seemingly no real place for humanities. But, what if I told you that these gadgets are a call for restoration, and not stagnation?

Rivals? Nah, partners.

Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Fast-growing tech industries demand individuals with venerable problem-solving and optimisation skills. However, besides this technical proficiency, they also require critical thinking expertise associated closely with Humanities. Not only, “How do we further the crawlability of AI bots?”, but also “How do we ensure its use isn’t contaminated by ill intentions (i.e. deep fakes)?”. Sometimes, these questions are the very difference between a discovery becoming an asset or a liability.

Besides providing a framework for scientists to steady innovation with ethical consideration, this stream bears another crucial role. While technology makes our lives more convenient, humanities influence our decision-making. Scrolling through social media, people rarely ever stop to read about a 4 decade-old conjecture that had just been solved. Instead, what persuades them to spare a few minutes are headlines on the latest political drama or voting campaigns. Cinematography further challenges societal constructs and brings about social awareness, inspiring a change in public attitude. For instance, the film “Taare Zameen Par” dictates a boy diagnosed with Dyxlexia — a heartfelt viewing experience that reduced stigmas surrounding neurodivergent children, aiding in the re-evaluation of parenting and educational standards. Science can explain the way their mind works, but only humanities can cement its acceptance in society.

And of course, lawyers, judges and other members of the judicial system always take a front row in shaping society. In many developing countries, what hinders progress is never a “lack of talent”, but more so a lack of political and administrative structure that would otherwise allow these talents to reach their fullest potential. In such cases, a lawful government focuses on human well-being, building public trust by prioritising access to justice over the sole economic fruition of the country.

Doesn’t this suggest that humanities stands as one of the most fundamental pillars of society — and that when this pillar falters, the resulting imbalance manifests as the chaos unfolding before us.

Perhaps, we can fix this.

Interdisciplinarity — when science and humanities are integrated to bridge social and technical knowledge. Here, urban planning meets sociology, healthcare meets psychology and preconceived prejudice meets impartial amalgamation. For instance, in South Korea and Japan, students majoring in STEM are encouraged to solve technological challenges in data science with a humanistic lens. But why only at college? From an early age, children should be trained to address issues like global inequality and climate change, using principles learnt from philosophy and history. Teach them the wonders of these subjects USING digital tools (i.e. virtual museum tours with holograms and other projections), instead of confining the field to thick monotonous books.

In real time, specialised consultants can be employed in different scientific institutions. For instance, philosophers in biotech labs can help draw moral boundaries in furthering concepts like gene editing, designer embryos, whilst thinking about the long-term consequences involving more ethical challenges like autonomy and equity. The government can further this by mandating “dual perspective” policies in the case of construction projects. Before initiating these actions, ethical risk analysis, cultural impact assessments and other forms of deliberation must be carried out.

Conclusion

Moving forward, the type of thinking associated with STEM will continue to bring about great achievements. Nevertheless, without the ethical viewpoint adopted by humanities, these achievements will never find true value in society — in fact, they may regress it. Not every field must result in direct market growth to be valued. When students understand this, maybe then they’d finally believe :

“Science = Humanities”