3 ms·

This is a truly awful idea. You can't add an "A" to "STEM," you can introduce a new word, "STEAM" with a different meaning, but the word "STEM" will still exist

This is a truly awful idea. You can't add an "A" to "STEM," you can introduce a new word, "STEAM" with a different meaning, but the word "STEM" will still exist, and will still have the same meaning. If you're talking about "adding meaning to a word" what you're really talking about is prescribing language. I.e. telling people don't express this idea "STEM," I find that idea uninclusive, express the idea I want instead. It's especially egregious in this case because STEM is the opposite of arts, so you're destroying as much meaning as possible. Down this road is a world where everyone is "included" and completely unable to communicate with each other because you've suck all the meaning out of the words to make them feel more inclusive.

untog 9y ago
> It's especially egregious in this case because STEM is the opposite of arts This feels like exactly the viewpoint that the "A" addition is trying to address. The arts are not the "opposite" of engineering, maths etc. at all, it's just an alien thing people don't want to admit they don't know very much about.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  The viewpoint being addressed here is what exactly? That STEM is a useful word with a meaning? I think rather than "trying to address" this viewpoint it might be more accurate to say you're trying to squash this viewpoint and prevent people from expressing the idea that STEM allows them to express. But maybe we expanded the definition of the word "address" to include this connotation as well, I have trouble keeping up with all the linguistic prescription going on these days. It's true that the arts aren't really the "opposite" of STEM, but if you took every usage of STEM, and replaced it with STEAM I suspect you'd change the meanings of all of those sentences in a very non-negligible way, which is to say you'll prevent people from communicating what they were actually trying to communicate.
  - untog 9y ago
    The original question said nothing about replacing anything, so I'm really not sure where you are coming from with this perspective about things being "squashed". It feels as though you're coming to this with a preconceived agenda around "linguistic prescription" that is only mildly related to the topic at hand... so I'll leave you to it.
    - jdoliner 9y ago
      Adding an "A" to STEM is replacing STEM with STEAM. If it wasn't about replacement the post would be about a new word, STEAM. Or, there wouldn't be a post at all, OP would just start using STEAM.
      - untog 9y ago
        Why would a new term replace an old one? The new word means something different. Two terms that mean two different things, one does not replace the other. Of course the OP just wouldn't "start using STEAM", do you really mean to imply that people organically started using the term "STEM" separately without ever discussing it?
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I agree with the other reply - I don’t think arts and STEM are opposites. I do engineering at home outside of “work” engineering, and the work I do at home feels like a kind of techno art to me. I am personally curious about the history of art though we never studied it in engineering school. I agree that adding an A to STEM does not spell STEM, but I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”. Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say art and STEM are “opposites”?
- jdoliner 9y ago
  Opposites may have been the wrong word here. But STEM expresses a concept which arts are very much not part of. > I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”. Neither of these is a goal, they're words. Words enter the lexicon because they're useful. There was never hacker news post saying: "hey guys, we should have a word that encompasses all the in demand technical subjects" someone used it and others picked it up because it expressed something they wanted to express. STEAM is a perfectly well formed concept, and if people had any interest in expressing it then it would probably already be a word. Now, maybe people do have a need for this concept (I very much doubt it, but maybe) in which case I would expect to see it take off in usage. But trying to forward a goal by telling people they should change their use of language in some way is an inherently destructive process. For example, imagine a child asks you which subjects in school they should focus on, easy you say: "STEAMHLHGFS..." we've included everything in this acronym, and now there's no way for you to actually express anything to this child that provides the least bit of focus.

untog 9y ago

> It's especially egregious in this case because STEM is the opposite of arts This feels like exactly the viewpoint that the "A" addition is trying to address. The arts are not the "opposite" of engineering, maths etc. at all, it's just an alien thing people don't want to admit they don't know very much about.

jdoliner 9y ago
The viewpoint being addressed here is what exactly? That STEM is a useful word with a meaning? I think rather than "trying to address" this viewpoint it might be more accurate to say you're trying to squash this viewpoint and prevent people from expressing the idea that STEM allows them to express. But maybe we expanded the definition of the word "address" to include this connotation as well, I have trouble keeping up with all the linguistic prescription going on these days. It's true that the arts aren't really the "opposite" of STEM, but if you took every usage of STEM, and replaced it with STEAM I suspect you'd change the meanings of all of those sentences in a very non-negligible way, which is to say you'll prevent people from communicating what they were actually trying to communicate.
- untog 9y ago
  The original question said nothing about replacing anything, so I'm really not sure where you are coming from with this perspective about things being "squashed". It feels as though you're coming to this with a preconceived agenda around "linguistic prescription" that is only mildly related to the topic at hand... so I'll leave you to it.
  - jdoliner 9y ago
    Adding an "A" to STEM is replacing STEM with STEAM. If it wasn't about replacement the post would be about a new word, STEAM. Or, there wouldn't be a post at all, OP would just start using STEAM.
    - untog 9y ago
      Why would a new term replace an old one? The new word means something different. Two terms that mean two different things, one does not replace the other. Of course the OP just wouldn't "start using STEAM", do you really mean to imply that people organically started using the term "STEM" separately without ever discussing it?

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

I agree with the other reply - I don’t think arts and STEM are opposites. I do engineering at home outside of “work” engineering, and the work I do at home feels like a kind of techno art to me. I am personally curious about the history of art though we never studied it in engineering school. I agree that adding an A to STEM does not spell STEM, but I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”. Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say art and STEM are “opposites”?

jdoliner 9y ago
Opposites may have been the wrong word here. But STEM expresses a concept which arts are very much not part of. > I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”. Neither of these is a goal, they're words. Words enter the lexicon because they're useful. There was never hacker news post saying: "hey guys, we should have a word that encompasses all the in demand technical subjects" someone used it and others picked it up because it expressed something they wanted to express. STEAM is a perfectly well formed concept, and if people had any interest in expressing it then it would probably already be a word. Now, maybe people do have a need for this concept (I very much doubt it, but maybe) in which case I would expect to see it take off in usage. But trying to forward a goal by telling people they should change their use of language in some way is an inherently destructive process. For example, imagine a child asks you which subjects in school they should focus on, easy you say: "STEAMHLHGFS..." we've included everything in this acronym, and now there's no way for you to actually express anything to this child that provides the least bit of focus.