Humanities came late to the game and try to claim the honor without actually having done anything. Except whine and complain about the demise of X because of this new fangled internet thingy. For X you may insert "reading", "writing", "critical thinking", "books", "education", "manners", "discussions" and another 50 things at least. I'd say the humanities hindered the progress of humanity more than they promoted it over the last 50 years.
Chomsky hierarchy is an important concept in programming languages and could be considered as originating from linguistics
Philosophy (which is counted in humanities) has had massive contributions to Logic and formal methods in computer science.
There's even more examples of humanities contribution in HCI and AI safety.
If humanities taught logic, and actually rigorous analytic capabilities that were on par with STEM, I don't think we'd be in the situation we're in now.
Instead it's the opposite. The departments have made humanities increasingly easier, thereby devaluing them even more.
Further I ended up taking a class that actually read original Greek texts, which isn't all that common even within the department I was at.
My point still stands.
Chomsky is one I grant you, he was influential in both computer science as well as linguistics. But his success in linguistics was even more revolutionary than his influence on CS, exactly because he introduced abstraction, rigor and various ideas from computer science and mathematics into linguistics.
Also, the "p exists because of q" form of argument puts philosophy causally "before" these other disciplines.
Yes, if you go back to antiquity, there were only philosophy and religion. Science and mathematics were once sub-branches of philosophy. But that's a few thousand years before the internet, and the renaissance at the latest was where philosophy was fully separate from sciences and mathematics.
Maybe, only maybe, getting to know the history of the internet (oh, and of mathematics, too), of the people that designed and built it, would inform a little more your stance.
Separating so bluntly maths, physics, biology, from humanities (and reciprocally) is precisely a trait that is telling of an unbalanced understanding of the world humanity built around itself with all these languages and abstractions to describe it.
But where are your arguments, and where is your evidence? Or should I derive from this that all arguments in the humanities boil down to name-calling?
No. You should derive from that that human life, and humanities being part of that, are a matter of experience, more than of argument/convincing. I could spend some time to argue with you about that, but you're showing you are not open to such a discussion, and my time is more valuable (and yours) than that.
It's like sex, intimacy, sight, smell, touch: you can't argue about it or explain it to someone who never experienced it.
It's definitely hard to argue or demonstrate how sometimes a book, a painting, a music can turn around your whole perspective on things.
Which means that humanities cannot be important to mankind as a whole, because most won't appreciate them, as they are a matter of taste. And they are as arbitrary as other matters of taste, lacking the universality that is necessary for usefulness. Good riddance!
I don’t know if you lack anything there. What you say is indicative of such a lack of it.
And your conclusion is obviously negated by history and experience itself.
And your final envoy is indicative of a kind of comptent that is itself a tell. Farewell indeed.
So it's not just a matter of taste, humanities are a cult.
Not sorry, doesn't work that way.
IIRC some early programming languages were even tailored to the humanities, like Snobol.