Editing Humanities (section)

===Romanticization and rejection===

Implicit in many of these arguments supporting the humanities are the makings of arguments against public support of the humanities. [[Joseph Carroll (scholar)|Joseph Carroll]] asserts that we live in a changing world, a world where "cultural capital" is replaced with ''[[scientific literacy]]'', and in which the romantic notion of a Renaissance humanities scholar is obsolete. Such arguments appeal to judgments and anxieties about the essential uselessness of the humanities, especially in an age when it is seemingly vitally important for scholars of literature, history and the arts to engage in "collaborative work with experimental scientists or even simply to make "intelligent use of the findings from empirical science."<ref>""Theory," Anti-Theory, and Empirical Criticism", ''Biopoetics: Evolutionary Explorations in the Arts'', Brett Cooke and Frederick Turner, eds., Lexington, Kentucky: ICUS Books, 1999, pp. 144–145. 152.</ref>

Despite many humanities based arguments against the humanities some within the exact sciences have called for their return. In 2017, Science popularizer [[Bill Nye]] retracted previous claims about the supposed 'uselessness' of philosophy. As Bill Nye states, "People allude to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle all the time, and I think many of us who make those references don't have a solid grounding," he said. "It's good to know the history of philosophy."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Goldhill |first=Olivia |date=2017-04-15 |title=Bill Nye says I convinced him that philosophy is not just a load of self-indulgent crap |url=https://qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind |website=Quartz |language=en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191210213752/https://qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/ |archive-date=2019-12-10 |access-date=2019-10-12}}</ref> Scholars, such as biologist [[Scott F. Gilbert]], make the claim that it is in fact the increasing predominance, leading to exclusivity, of scientific ways of thinking that need to be tempered by historical and social context. Gilbert worries that the commercialization that may be inherent in some ways of conceiving science (pursuit of funding, academic prestige etc.) need to be examined externally. Gilbert argues:
{{blockquote|First of all, there is a very successful alternative to science as a commercialized march to 'progress.' This is the approach taken by the liberal arts college, a model that takes pride in seeing science in context and in integrating science with the humanities and social sciences.<ref>Gilbert, S. F. (n.d.). 'Health Fetishism among the Nacirema: A fugue on Jenny Reardon's The Postgenomic Condition: Ethics, Justice, and Knowledge after the Genome (Chicago University Press, 2017) and Isabelle Stengers' Another Science is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science (Polity Press, 2018). Retrieved from https://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/Organisms/article/view/14346/14050.' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191210213724/https://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/Organisms/article/view/14346/14050.%27 |date=2019-12-10 }}</ref>}}