1) You are correct to a certain extent, but mostly missing my point. I’m not saying anything about the relative merits of ambiguity qua ambiguity. This was a value-neutral descriptor (in general) from my point of view.

Yes, high-end physics leaves room for disagreement, as does any field worth researching (if it were known, it wouldn’t be cutting edge). Physics, however, contains far less retreading the same well-known ground than the softer subjects. F=ma has only had a major revision once in the last 200 years, and that was just to show it is a special-case approximation. The humanities retread the same ground all the time on questions like “Is there any absolute truth” or “What is the self” (and it is ground well worth retreading). Few things are ever considered closed and known in the Humanities. This is simply a description of how the fields operate. No decrying here.

2a) Again, we’re talking past each other. Even if you integrate it into the course, this is still going to detract from the amount of technical material you can cover in the same finite amount of time. It is indeed plausible that the two could be “balanced” in the sense to which you refer. It is foolhardy to pretend that there is no cost, however. That cost is sacrificing some of the technical competence of the engineer for the sake of these other goals. It’s a tradeoff I disagree with. We pay engineers for their technical skills. The others are important, but secondary. You must have something worth communicating before communication is helpful.

2b) I agree that engineers have to be able to communicate in the real world. So does anyone else. Is this an argument for teaching everyone “communication skills?” It’s not that hard to pick up on your own, and mediocrity at communications is seldom as costly as mediocrity at technical skills.

2c) Finally, you state that “people should be ethical no matter where they are and what they’re doing.” Congratulations. You’ve said something almost meaningless. There are as many interpretations as there are readers of such sentiments. My class on ethics was a sham. At a Christian university, we were essentially taught that the one true source of ethical principles is the National Society of Professional Engineers. That’s not ethics; that’s bullshit. But that was the noblest source they could appeal to without offending anyone. Never was there a discussion of why one should be ethical; it was always just “how do these rules apply to this situation?” Teaching ethics in the context of engineering is ineffective at best, and impossible at worst. Hence my approval of the humanities method of simply exposing yourself to as many strains of thought as you can and discovering for yourself exactly what it means.

Related Posts

1. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down?
2. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part II)
3. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part III)
4. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part IV)