3 ms·

STEM problems are better defined by their nature, which makes them more appealing - they are easier to see and understand, both the problems and solutions. In b

STEM problems are better defined by their nature, which makes them more appealing - they are easier to see and understand, both the problems and solutions. In business, I find people frequently make the mistake of latching onto well-defined, easy-to-measure distractions, rather than the actual problem at hand which is frustratingly hard to measure and which will never have a clear solution. Social sciences and humanities are hard to measure, but they are often the most important problems: Peace and war; prosperity and opportunity; truth, freedom and justice; politics and policy. I'll observe that the problems of the world today aren't due to a lack of technology - we're doing very well with that - but to the very problems addressed by humanities and social sciences. (And perhaps that's not unrelated to the shift in focus from those fields to technology in recent decades.) Here's an alternative perspective: STEM only allows precisely-measured problems; if you can't measure it, it's not STEM. Arguably, STEM is taking the low-hanging fruit and leaving the hard stuff, the problems you can't measure but which absolutely must be solved, to the other fields. EDIT: Major revision; sorry if you read the first version.

ThomPete 9y ago
They are "less" valuable in a couple of ways. 1) They often aren't that predictable and highly depending on cultural norms i.e. more or less anything goes for a study or a report and the standards that are in place just doesn't produce as much value to society compared to how much we spend on it IMO. 2) They even more often aren't actually re-producable but are rather pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results. 2) They can often be studied on your own without need for guidance that can't be solved in a self study. (We are at a point were I would argue most humanities and social sciences doesn't actually need a university to happen on. Plenty of available knowledge for that today online and in various foras. 3) They don't produce value for society that can be reproduced by society, instead they are used often for political reasons or based on biases we have already that can't be tested. Don't get me wrong, philosophy, social sciences, psychology etc all have an important role to play in society, but they do not need to be PHD's IMO. For the most cases they aren't rigorous enough which amongst other things is because they are more often than not coming from disciplines where the actual scientific rigor that is required to say anything along the lines of "we know". Not sure in what way you think social sciences and humanities help solve those problems. In what way can we rely on those fields (rather than our own independent thinking) to "solve" the problems that you claim we have? Most problems we have are solved (and created) by technology and most problems that technology can't solve neither social sciences nor humanities at large can solve (there are obvious exceptions)
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > more or less anything goes for a study or a report > pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results > They can often be studied on your own without need for guidance that can't be solved in a self study. What are these claims based on? From my limited personal involvement and my more extensive reading, they are not at all true. They also conflate many very different fields, from comparative literature to behavioral psychology to ancient history to anthropology to archaeology to philosophy ... A basic requirement, just to get your foot in the door of the lobby, is expert knowledge of prior research and in techniques, something that does require a PhD (which is rewarded for original research - so the parent is almost saying that you don't need a PhD to get a PhD) and years of study. The idea that someone can learn these things (or acquire real expertise in any field) on their own, without mentoring and guidance from existing experts, access to research libraries, communication with peers, access to resources like labs and lab assistants, is hard to fathom and at best extremely inefficient. And that's just the first step. > In what way can we rely on those fields (rather than our own independent thinking) These fields are 'independent thinking'. They are individuals who care to spend years reading deeply, consult with experts, master the literature, practice the techniques, etc. If someone on HN posted that they had done those things, you'd give them some credit. If they got a PhD out of it, perhaps the credit should be taken away. > Most problems we have are solved (and created) by technology That is true, if we overlook minor challenges like government, human rights, education, laws, war, peace, politics, international relations, religion, truth, knowledge, freedom ...
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787 https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-seve... https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... You last answer kind of illuminates that you are talking about something very different than me. Academia didn't solve any of those areas and I never said that academia doesn't have important areas we are talking about whether it should get funding which my claim is that it doesn't need these days compared to basic research in the hard sciences. The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major, understanding how to get fusion to work on the other hand is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have experts in peace or political science and that they can't be instrumental in bringing something to reality but we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same.

ThomPete 9y ago

They are "less" valuable in a couple of ways. 1) They often aren't that predictable and highly depending on cultural norms i.e. more or less anything goes for a study or a report and the standards that are in place just doesn't produce as much value to society compared to how much we spend on it IMO. 2) They even more often aren't actually re-producable but are rather pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results. 2) They can often be studied on your own without need for guidance that can't be solved in a self study. (We are at a point were I would argue most humanities and social sciences doesn't actually need a university to happen on. Plenty of available knowledge for that today online and in various foras. 3) They don't produce value for society that can be reproduced by society, instead they are used often for political reasons or based on biases we have already that can't be tested. Don't get me wrong, philosophy, social sciences, psychology etc all have an important role to play in society, but they do not need to be PHD's IMO. For the most cases they aren't rigorous enough which amongst other things is because they are more often than not coming from disciplines where the actual scientific rigor that is required to say anything along the lines of "we know". Not sure in what way you think social sciences and humanities help solve those problems. In what way can we rely on those fields (rather than our own independent thinking) to "solve" the problems that you claim we have? Most problems we have are solved (and created) by technology and most problems that technology can't solve neither social sciences nor humanities at large can solve (there are obvious exceptions)

forapurpose 9y ago
> more or less anything goes for a study or a report > pop-scientific studies that are more based on personal interpretation than any reproducible results > They can often be studied on your own without need for guidance that can't be solved in a self study. What are these claims based on? From my limited personal involvement and my more extensive reading, they are not at all true. They also conflate many very different fields, from comparative literature to behavioral psychology to ancient history to anthropology to archaeology to philosophy ... A basic requirement, just to get your foot in the door of the lobby, is expert knowledge of prior research and in techniques, something that does require a PhD (which is rewarded for original research - so the parent is almost saying that you don't need a PhD to get a PhD) and years of study. The idea that someone can learn these things (or acquire real expertise in any field) on their own, without mentoring and guidance from existing experts, access to research libraries, communication with peers, access to resources like labs and lab assistants, is hard to fathom and at best extremely inefficient. And that's just the first step. > In what way can we rely on those fields (rather than our own independent thinking) These fields are 'independent thinking'. They are individuals who care to spend years reading deeply, consult with experts, master the literature, practice the techniques, etc. If someone on HN posted that they had done those things, you'd give them some credit. If they got a PhD out of it, perhaps the credit should be taken away. > Most problems we have are solved (and created) by technology That is true, if we overlook minor challenges like government, human rights, education, laws, war, peace, politics, international relations, religion, truth, knowledge, freedom ...
- ThomPete 9y ago
  https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787 https://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-seve... https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... You last answer kind of illuminates that you are talking about something very different than me. Academia didn't solve any of those areas and I never said that academia doesn't have important areas we are talking about whether it should get funding which my claim is that it doesn't need these days compared to basic research in the hard sciences. The worlds problems aren't going to be solved with another expert in peace or a political science major, understanding how to get fusion to work on the other hand is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have experts in peace or political science and that they can't be instrumental in bringing something to reality but we don't need funding to learn to be a political major or to acquire knowledge. Getting an education and educating yourself isn't the same.