>Our culture is so steeped in Snow’s worldview at this point that it doesn’t quite make sense that things have intrinsic “being” and “ends” to which they are ob

>Our culture is so steeped in Snow’s worldview at this point that it doesn’t quite make sense that things have intrinsic “being” and “ends” to which they are objectively and irrevocably oriented. It’s ultimately all raw material to be fashioned to purpose. But it's not? Technology has progressed, sure, and with that material reality changes. It enables stuff, doesn't dictate the use it gets. I can absolutely understand a defense of the humanities based on human appreciation, life, subjective beauty, whatever you want to call it. Life is more than an optimization game. ...But then it should adhere itself to that. This simply is not the case, under this pretense, the social sciences are an exhaustive argument in favor of Snow's position. It is no coincidence that in academia there's problems in one side that are much less prevalent in the other. Nor that it was the humanities who started taking the name of science for credibility.