During my first chemistry lecture, a professor named Dr. Enderle pointed out the range of topics humanities majors investigate, as opposed to what we would study in his class. His point was not that introductory chemistry is more complex than many introductory humanities courses, but that it's more contained. After all, just think of the many variables we must take into account when dealing with something as complex as a war or a political position. A scientist can solve a chemistry problem, but can he/she propose a viable solution to war, to poverty, to conflict between nations?
As Hank Green so brilliantly states, we form our opinions and link them to our egos, to our very perceptions of self. Maybe we don't know, and maybe that's why it's sometimes best not to claim to know. We don't really know if a solution will work, if things will stop after said solution is implemented. We may devise a hypothesis and support, but until a solution is implemented, until we observe in data whether the implementation was a success or a failure, our hypothesis is just that.
Like any university, UC Davis experiences some degree of conflict between science majors and humnaities majors. But how can we achieve anything, without a team of both? We must not only understand the inner-workings of the contained systems, but we must also be able to harness their power in a way that benefits the people we serve. Communication is key, so that we may establish a bridge between the sciences and the humanities.