People assume that STEM fields are somehow more valuable or serious because they are “reality-based,” while the humanities are merely matters of opinion.
But reality includes abstractions and moral problems just as much as particles. And I’m willing to bet most of the things you spend time worrying about have more to do with psychology, philosophy, or ethics instead of physics.
Reality is More Than Matter
The argument for STEM’s superiority assumes that physical, measurable things are somehow more real, foundational, or worthy of study.
But a market crash, a legal precedent, or a border dispute cannot be measured under a microscope, yet these “social facts” govern our lives as surely as gravity. You cannot touch “justice,” but its presence determines how a society functions. When someone insists that you “trust the science” they are also hoping you will distrust all other factors. But to ignore social reality is to ignore the majority of the human experience. I’m not making the argument that all experience is valid or everyone has their own truth. Instead I’m saying that a STEM-focused worldview ignores real truths.
We should also consider that human behavior is starting to influence our physical world. Our views about climate and energy, for instance, affect the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today. And our views on space exploration and development will affect the physical behavior of other planets and perhaps of stars in the future, if we choose to influence those things.
Science is a Human Enterprise
We tend to think of science as a neutral window into the universe. In truth, science is a human activity.
Scientists are not machines; they are people with biases, limited by the tools and funding of their time. They decide which questions are worth asking and which data points to ignore. In 2026, the “facts” we discover about AI or medicine are often shaped by who pays for the research. Science cannot be carried out by robots or computer programs, it must be done by creative beings who necessarily bring their lifetime of theories with them into the laboratory.
“How” vs. “Why”
A chemist can explain the properties of a toxin but not the ethics of using it as a weapon. An engineer can build an algorithm but cannot tell you if it unfairly targets the poor. A field that ignores “Why” isn’t more reality-based; it is less so. We need the humanities to solve moral problems that STEM cannot answer.
Different Maps for the Same Ground
No single field owns truth. Instead, different disciplines offer different maps of the same territory.
Think of a painting. A chemist sees pigments and binders. An economist sees an asset. An art historian sees a reflection of history. None of them are wrong. They are simply using different tools to describe the same object. So while a neurologist can map the firing of neurons, a novelist might better explain the reasons for feeling love or grief. And people may rightly be more interested in the latter.
The Illusion of Direct Observation
We assume that when a scientist looks through a microscope or reads a digital scale, they are witnessing “raw” reality. They aren’t. No observation is direct. Your brain interprets what it sees, filtering every signal through language, past experiences, and expectations. Our tools and our senses are not windows; they are lenses that color and shape whatever we are looking at.
I run a boutique SEO consulting business in San Francisco, CA. I like to play golf, write a little bit, and argue with my friends.