1) I'd say I'm arguing for a "scientific" society, but more importantly, I don't see how you are making a connection between teaching with more emphasis on logic and rationality and eroding someone's compassion. The nicest people I know happen to be the most rational people I know. (Not meant as a proof, and it is a small sample size, but I don't see it.) I don't see how reading Shakespeare or learning extinct languages makes us more prone to diversify our world views. 
2)These arguments seem generalized, but how is critical thinking not scientific? Critical thinking, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, and assesses conclusion. I almost posted the importance of critical thinking in my justification for the sciences.
3)Science is one field in which absolute answers do not exist. Everything is constantly questioned and requestioned. Tested and retested. Science isn't about the absolute conclusions, but the methodology behind securing your answers to ensure their validity. It promotes healthy rationale behind investigation and questioning. I agree with 99% of your post in the importance of certain values, but I can't see how you connect them to humanities while dismissing the from science.
1) Well,in the sense I'm describing it, technology rests upon the metaphysics of science. In other words, technology is science. I'm willing to debate this, but I don't think it's necessary. If I understand you, you're take on my argument in this context is that scientists are inherently selfish (i.e. not compassionate) due to their scientific training. That's not quite so, and is in fact a stretch to what I am saying.
First, I'm sure your scientific friends are very compassionate and such. However, I'm pretty sure that, at least in their undergrad, they were required to take a number of courses in the humanities. Along with that, they have likely undergone humanities studies throughout their highschool and elementary careers.
Second, I'm not advocating that there is a direct correlation (in the statistical sense) between scientific training and compassion. In other words, I'm not saying that science=selfish and humanities=compassionate where you could plot your study hours to determine how compassionate you are. I am arguing, as I've stated in the beginning, that we need a balance of the two. The OP was in response to the growing trend in education to replace 'usable sciences' with 'frivolous humanities'.
Third, I'm not dismissing reason or logic. That would be patently absurd. The humanities are not solely dominated by the art, but also reason. They address, as the name implies, humanity. This is both through the reasonable and logical subjects, e.g. philosophy, linguistics, etc., and the emotional and artistic subjects, e.g. literature, religions, etc. Now, of course there are crossovers in the humanities subjects, but I'm sure you understand my point. Consider the way in which philosophy examines humanity compared to science. In the scientific view, there is no room for compassion other than an examinable phenomenon of chemical reactions (or whatever is the current prevailing theory).
Fourth, how does studying Shakespeare or Ancient languages diversify our world view? With all due respect, you either haven't studied Shaky or any ancient languages, or you did it wrong. Literature explores the human condition through the imagination, possibility, and through expressions of the human emotion. Shakespeare is one of the most groundbreaking and revelatory examples of literature we have ever seen. Studying ancient languages is almost nothing like taking a class on conversational French or Spanish. It is both, in the vein of linguistic and cultural study, and examines the human condition through the way in which people lived in ancient times, as well as the nature of ideas through language.
2) As I've just argued, I did not meant to imply that the humanities were rational and the sciences don't involve critical thinking. Of course there is critical thinking in the sciences, but it is of another kind. The critical thinking in the humanities examines issues of value and moral judgments, where the sciences do not. Consider Weber's view on Sociological value-neutrality and simply evaluative political science, now accepted as the correct way in which to study those arenas. As I've argued, the world is not value-neutral or essentially amoral (debatable. of course) and, although this may be the best way in which to study it objectively, does not allow us to analyze the human condition in its full truth. Again, I'm not arguing the the survival of the humanities with a concomitant denial of the sciences, but rather the strong survival of both.
3) In the sense that science has no absolute, I'm reminded of a Neil Degrasse Tyson quote I heard in a youtube debate years ago. I couldn't find the source, but the sentiment remains the same. He described the field of scientific knowledge as a sphere. Consider the inside of the sphere as known facts, and the skin of the sphere. For example, I would argue that general/special relativity and QM are granted. What binds them...who knows. Well, we have ideas (string theory, etc), but we are still examining it. Of course we changed Newtonian physics, by examining it in another way (remember, physical properties, not human beings, leading to the whole compassion thing), but there still a massive truth in physical properties as Newton described them. It'
To make the point again, in a slightly different way, I recognize the nature of scientific critical thinking. As a core concept, both the humanities and the sciences require it. Where the big difference comes in is the reliance of objective evidence. While being excellent to study something as a science, this kind of evidence is not the sole form of evidence in the humanities. To neglect them with the demise of the humanities is certainly a disservice to our understanding of humanity, as well as a necessary reduction in societal compassion (considering the nature of science and compassion as I have argued before) and an increase in instrumental thinking (I'll get to it).