7 ms·

The Case Against “Stem”

47 points by martinlaz 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lumost 6y ago
Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability? In the 1990s the thing to do was work at a consumer website, in the 2000s it was hedge funds and finance, in the teens it was large tech companies. While the technical skill required to work in any of these areas is considerable, many not involved in tech do not view the output as progress. This may be the greatest complement to those who work in Tech - or it could be a sign that the incentives for what is viewed as true innovation are misaligned. That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that would only be dreams when I was a kid. - Private space companies planning mars missions within the decade. - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific conditions - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per charge. - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the internet. It's not quite the extreme shift from the 1940s to the 1960s, but progress is happening.
- jrsj 6y ago
  Even “advancements” these companies might produce now probably wouldn’t be particularly great considering that they’re borderline evil
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    Evil things have always been the primary driver of technology. A good thing is that many of these evil things aren't meant to kill people anymore.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
      > Evil things have always been the primary driver of technology. A big example is the space program. It came out of the desire to develop rockets that could reliably deliver nuclear bombs to kill millions of people in a matter of minutes.
    - jrsj 6y ago
      Not really sure what good can come out of technology built for surveillance and manufacturing consent though.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Usually the lack of imagination is in the opposite direction — “I can’t imagine what can go wrong if we keep a close eye on your health metrics to give advanced warning of heart attacks/summon ambulances when your elderly grandparents fall/tell you when your blood sugar is crashing, nor what could possibly be bad about using CCTV to deter crime, nor from having Google Street View in all the places I live or want to visit”, that sort of thing.
- rmah 6y ago
  In the 1990's the thing to do was work in management consulting or finance (in the USA at least). Eleven out of the dozen or so people I knew graduated MIT in 1989 and 1990 went to work for big name management consulting firms or wall street. The one who did not joined a video company that filmed promos for things that went boom (military hardware).
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that would only be dreams when I was a kid. What you wrote is typical HN fanboi nonsense: > - Private space companies planning mars missions within the decade. Which is pointless. And will be stopped after the first fatal accident. > - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy Well, sometimes, when it's available. Unlike base load, which is always. > - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. It's good from a consumer standpoint, not so much from a maker standpoint. > - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific conditions No, they can't. And they won't until insurance companies sign on, which hasn't even started. > - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per charge. At double (or more) the initial price of an ICE car. > - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the internet. It's handy to get things done, at the price of relentless tracking. What I see continuing to deteriorate in 2021: - destruction of the nuclear family thanks to Tindr and other apps. This is the #1 threat of our times. - CCP undermining Western civilization through spying, bribing and misinformation. This is #2. - a leftist government in the US with nothing but intersectionalist policies (ie. navel gazing, fall of Rome, etc.) This is #3. It's entertaining that for every misdeed attributed to Trump during impeachments, there's endless video of the left previously doing the same thing or worse, yet they feel no accountability for their actions. What was Pelosi thinking when impeaching Trump for insurrection when she spent months supporting the burning of our downtowns (ie. actual insurrections)?
- bobmaxup 6y ago
  A lot can be done over the internet, but saying "almost anything that can be done" is reaching pretty far.
- 3gg 6y ago
  - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. Are you sure about that? https://en.unesco.org/news/new-report-global-broadband-access-underscores-urgent-need-reach-half-world-still-unconnected https://en.unesco.org/news/new-report-global-broadband-acces...
- ffggvv 6y ago
  >> Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy source? sounds laughable to me
  - Elof 6y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-solar-are-cheapest-power-source-in-most-places-bnef-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-sola... The limiting factor is exiting infra. If you had the option between the two in a greenfield project solar/wind would win hands down
    - LunaSea 6y ago
      Including batteries and taking into account aging?
- gumby 6y ago
  > Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability? I think the hubris that "innovation" requires technology is, while common, unwarranted. Although Christiansen use technological examples in his book, his thesis works without it. Thomas Cook produced a major, world-changing innovation with no technology of his own. Sears was an innovation. MacDonalds was an innovation. The key idea of YouTube (aggregate by content type rather than topic) was not innovative (and wasn't even Youtube's idea); likewise Amazon's original idea did not involve developing technology (use pre existing technology to jump on a curve early, which is not having to manage retail inventory in small amounts). Personally I have a technocentric approach and am uninterested in companies or models that don't involve developing new technology but I recognize that technology is rarely innovative in and of itself.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    I agree with your last point the most - while most things are not innovative on their own, sometimes the implementation in itself is innovative. For example, YouTube might not be innovative for simply allowing only video uploads, but is is arguably an innovation in that it can handle 500 hours of video uploaded every minute[0] and does so profitably (well, maybe [1]). Amazon also definitely didn’t innovate on any concept with Amazon.com, but they did build AWS which started with the on-demand hardware/software space and opened the doors to thousands of startups that might actually be using AWS to push innovative products. 0: https://blog.youtube/press/ https://blog.youtube/press/ 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us-about-youtube-and-cloud-profits.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us...
    - gumby 6y ago
      I attempted to be clear ("amazon's original idea") that the original innovation was not a technical innovation -- not only AWS but various warehouse, fulfillment and other developments have been technology-based. I also agree that subsequent development at Youtube has been technological. My point is that technology is neither sufficient nor even necessary for innovation and to assume so is to wear blinders. Sorry my brevity resulted in a lack of clarity. And we even have a term for pre-baconian work: "pure science" which is the stuff frequently and foolishly pointed at by the usual gradgrinds as being a waste of money.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  I don't understand why you said "the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability" and then disproved it with so many examples at the end, do you see those as exceptions or not good enough?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Evan7913 6y ago
Stern's radio show only airs three times a week so I think it could seamlessly transition to a podcast. Yes, Stern would lose some of his listeners who are accustomed to listening to his show in their vehicles through the radio feature, but I doubt he cares at all. He already gave up a large portion of his audience when he left terrestrial radio for satellite back in 2006. Stern's large dedicated fan base could even grow over time if his content wasn’t behind a paywall, as it is now. Though, a podcast service could elect to sell the show as a subscription knowing his fans would pay for it.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  “Science, technology, engineering, mathematics” i.e. STEM, not Howard Stern ;)
  - jfoutz 6y ago
    Darn keming.
- matthewowen 6y ago
  I like to think this is a deliberate parody of the "links on hacker news are just writing prompts for people who only read the title" joke/criticism.
- esotericimpl 6y ago
  This is a high quality post. Should be upvoted IMO.
Animats 6y ago
Worse is "STEAM", where art is added. That was an invention by the Rhode Island School of Art and Design. The result has been maker spaces where people make collages from construction paper, like kindergarten.[1] No need for any heavy, expensive, dangerous equipment that can make real stuff. [1] https://guides.newtonfreelibrary.net/makerspace/paper https://guides.newtonfreelibrary.net/makerspace/paper
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  Only heavy, expensive, dangerous equipment for big men like you
- techbio 6y ago
  This argument fails, and with a poor example. Experimentation with cheap materials is a reasonable preparation for investing in more complex and time-consuming processes. Also, fine "art" is what Leonardo DaVinci is primarily known for but only a fraction of what he and his contemporaries did during the renaissance. Edit: removed the word "spurious", to here, near to "specious".
  - tticvs 6y ago
    Leonardo DaVinci is certainly more well known for his engineering and inventions than his art.
    - techbio 6y ago
      As it relates to the problems with education, that is would be what one learns in STEM courses, while outside of them, I imagine one hears more about the Mona Lisa.
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  I wouldn't worry about "STEAM" being any worse than "STEM" already is. The common thread in "STEM" is, as far as I can tell, things that Americans think are too hard for them. Concretely, I'm not sure what good the policy implications are of a category does that spans mathematics and educational evaluation and public policy and archeology[1][2]. [1]: https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2016/stem-list.pdf https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2... [2]: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12599/nsf12599.htm#appendix https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12599/nsf12599.htm#appendix
cratermoon 6y ago
Since the 80s or so the market has made STEM subordinate to profit and power. Like so many other things, its value is now gauged by how much money it makes and how much influence it has. Thus you get machine learning in the service of targeted ad revenue and public health data forced into upholding political narratives. Meanwhile real breakthrough research like mRNA vaccines can often succumb to forces that have nothing to do with the actual value of the work. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/02/12/brutal-science-system-mrna-pioneer https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/02/12/brutal-science-...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
I think the fundamental reason that science and technology are so closely linked is because we really don’t know what “truth” is. A scientific model is not “true” so much as it is “useful”. In a sense, general and special relativity really did not become “true” to most people until GPS. Newtonian physics really became “true” when it was used to calculate accurate artillery tables. Pasteur’s germ theory really became “true” when antiseptic surgery saved lives. Without the grounding in usefulness, science as knowledge for its own sake, ends up becoming theology, where we argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin based on the presumed Mind of God, or whether there is a single Universe or a disparate Multiverse based on how elegant the Math becomes.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  Yeah, when you read these rants on "instrumentality" of science what you realize is that it's just apologia of literary studies degree holders to convince others of the importance of their diploma.
techbio 6y ago
The letters of the acronym "STEM" should be capitalized, as they are in the article title.
wwww4all 6y ago
The latest scientific, technological, engineering, financial innovation is becoming more ruthless, efficient, rent seeking middlemen. Is it good for science that the richest, most valuable companies in the world, that are worth Trillions of dollars and generate Billions in revenue, are basically slum lords renting out some pixels on screen? Is it good for society that thousands of engineering hours are spent on getting the boner pill ad faster to you by few milliseconds?
fortran77 6y ago
And, in addition to blurring the line between Science and Technology, there's the "STEAM" movement which just makes everything a blurry mess.

47 points by martinlaz 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability? In the 1990s the thing to do was work at a consumer website, in the 2000s it was hedge funds and finance, in the teens it was large tech companies. While the technical skill required to work in any of these areas is considerable, many not involved in tech do not view the output as progress. This may be the greatest complement to those who work in Tech - or it could be a sign that the incentives for what is viewed as true innovation are misaligned. That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that would only be dreams when I was a kid. - Private space companies planning mars missions within the decade. - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific conditions - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per charge. - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the internet. It's not quite the extreme shift from the 1940s to the 1960s, but progress is happening.

jrsj 6y ago
Even “advancements” these companies might produce now probably wouldn’t be particularly great considering that they’re borderline evil
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  Evil things have always been the primary driver of technology. A good thing is that many of these evil things aren't meant to kill people anymore.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    > Evil things have always been the primary driver of technology. A big example is the space program. It came out of the desire to develop rockets that could reliably deliver nuclear bombs to kill millions of people in a matter of minutes.
  - jrsj 6y ago
    Not really sure what good can come out of technology built for surveillance and manufacturing consent though.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Usually the lack of imagination is in the opposite direction — “I can’t imagine what can go wrong if we keep a close eye on your health metrics to give advanced warning of heart attacks/summon ambulances when your elderly grandparents fall/tell you when your blood sugar is crashing, nor what could possibly be bad about using CCTV to deter crime, nor from having Google Street View in all the places I live or want to visit”, that sort of thing.
rmah 6y ago
In the 1990's the thing to do was work in management consulting or finance (in the USA at least). Eleven out of the dozen or so people I knew graduated MIT in 1989 and 1990 went to work for big name management consulting firms or wall street. The one who did not joined a video company that filmed promos for things that went boom (military hardware).
redis_mlc 6y ago
> That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that would only be dreams when I was a kid. What you wrote is typical HN fanboi nonsense: > - Private space companies planning mars missions within the decade. Which is pointless. And will be stopped after the first fatal accident. > - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy Well, sometimes, when it's available. Unlike base load, which is always. > - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. It's good from a consumer standpoint, not so much from a maker standpoint. > - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific conditions No, they can't. And they won't until insurance companies sign on, which hasn't even started. > - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per charge. At double (or more) the initial price of an ICE car. > - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the internet. It's handy to get things done, at the price of relentless tracking. What I see continuing to deteriorate in 2021: - destruction of the nuclear family thanks to Tindr and other apps. This is the #1 threat of our times. - CCP undermining Western civilization through spying, bribing and misinformation. This is #2. - a leftist government in the US with nothing but intersectionalist policies (ie. navel gazing, fall of Rome, etc.) This is #3. It's entertaining that for every misdeed attributed to Trump during impeachments, there's endless video of the left previously doing the same thing or worse, yet they feel no accountability for their actions. What was Pelosi thinking when impeaching Trump for insurrection when she spent months supporting the burning of our downtowns (ie. actual insurrections)?
bobmaxup 6y ago
A lot can be done over the internet, but saying "almost anything that can be done" is reaching pretty far.
3gg 6y ago
- Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected to a broadband connection. Are you sure about that? https://en.unesco.org/news/new-report-global-broadband-access-underscores-urgent-need-reach-half-world-still-unconnected https://en.unesco.org/news/new-report-global-broadband-acces...
ffggvv 6y ago
>> Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy source? sounds laughable to me
- Elof 6y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-solar-are-cheapest-power-source-in-most-places-bnef-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-sola... The limiting factor is exiting infra. If you had the option between the two in a greenfield project solar/wind would win hands down
  - LunaSea 6y ago
    Including batteries and taking into account aging?
gumby 6y ago
> Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability? I think the hubris that "innovation" requires technology is, while common, unwarranted. Although Christiansen use technological examples in his book, his thesis works without it. Thomas Cook produced a major, world-changing innovation with no technology of his own. Sears was an innovation. MacDonalds was an innovation. The key idea of YouTube (aggregate by content type rather than topic) was not innovative (and wasn't even Youtube's idea); likewise Amazon's original idea did not involve developing technology (use pre existing technology to jump on a curve early, which is not having to manage retail inventory in small amounts). Personally I have a technocentric approach and am uninterested in companies or models that don't involve developing new technology but I recognize that technology is rarely innovative in and of itself.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I agree with your last point the most - while most things are not innovative on their own, sometimes the implementation in itself is innovative. For example, YouTube might not be innovative for simply allowing only video uploads, but is is arguably an innovation in that it can handle 500 hours of video uploaded every minute[0] and does so profitably (well, maybe [1]). Amazon also definitely didn’t innovate on any concept with Amazon.com, but they did build AWS which started with the on-demand hardware/software space and opened the doors to thousands of startups that might actually be using AWS to push innovative products. 0: https://blog.youtube/press/ https://blog.youtube/press/ 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us-about-youtube-and-cloud-profits.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us...
  - gumby 6y ago
    I attempted to be clear ("amazon's original idea") that the original innovation was not a technical innovation -- not only AWS but various warehouse, fulfillment and other developments have been technology-based. I also agree that subsequent development at Youtube has been technological. My point is that technology is neither sufficient nor even necessary for innovation and to assume so is to wear blinders. Sorry my brevity resulted in a lack of clarity. And we even have a term for pre-baconian work: "pure science" which is the stuff frequently and foolishly pointed at by the usual gradgrinds as being a waste of money.
jimmaswell 6y ago
I don't understand why you said "the most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability" and then disproved it with so many examples at the end, do you see those as exceptions or not good enough?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Evan7913 6y ago

Stern's radio show only airs three times a week so I think it could seamlessly transition to a podcast. Yes, Stern would lose some of his listeners who are accustomed to listening to his show in their vehicles through the radio feature, but I doubt he cares at all. He already gave up a large portion of his audience when he left terrestrial radio for satellite back in 2006. Stern's large dedicated fan base could even grow over time if his content wasn’t behind a paywall, as it is now. Though, a podcast service could elect to sell the show as a subscription knowing his fans would pay for it.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
“Science, technology, engineering, mathematics” i.e. STEM, not Howard Stern ;)
- jfoutz 6y ago
  Darn keming.
matthewowen 6y ago
I like to think this is a deliberate parody of the "links on hacker news are just writing prompts for people who only read the title" joke/criticism.
esotericimpl 6y ago
This is a high quality post. Should be upvoted IMO.

Animats 6y ago

Worse is "STEAM", where art is added. That was an invention by the Rhode Island School of Art and Design. The result has been maker spaces where people make collages from construction paper, like kindergarten.[1] No need for any heavy, expensive, dangerous equipment that can make real stuff. [1] https://guides.newtonfreelibrary.net/makerspace/paper https://guides.newtonfreelibrary.net/makerspace/paper

eat_veggies 6y ago
Only heavy, expensive, dangerous equipment for big men like you
techbio 6y ago
This argument fails, and with a poor example. Experimentation with cheap materials is a reasonable preparation for investing in more complex and time-consuming processes. Also, fine "art" is what Leonardo DaVinci is primarily known for but only a fraction of what he and his contemporaries did during the renaissance. Edit: removed the word "spurious", to here, near to "specious".
- tticvs 6y ago
  Leonardo DaVinci is certainly more well known for his engineering and inventions than his art.
  - techbio 6y ago
    As it relates to the problems with education, that is would be what one learns in STEM courses, while outside of them, I imagine one hears more about the Mona Lisa.
naniwaduni 6y ago
I wouldn't worry about "STEAM" being any worse than "STEM" already is. The common thread in "STEM" is, as far as I can tell, things that Americans think are too hard for them. Concretely, I'm not sure what good the policy implications are of a category does that spans mathematics and educational evaluation and public policy and archeology[1][2]. [1]: https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2016/stem-list.pdf https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2... [2]: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12599/nsf12599.htm#appendix https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12599/nsf12599.htm#appendix

cratermoon 6y ago

Since the 80s or so the market has made STEM subordinate to profit and power. Like so many other things, its value is now gauged by how much money it makes and how much influence it has. Thus you get machine learning in the service of targeted ad revenue and public health data forced into upholding political narratives. Meanwhile real breakthrough research like mRNA vaccines can often succumb to forces that have nothing to do with the actual value of the work. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/02/12/brutal-science-system-mrna-pioneer https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/02/12/brutal-science-...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

I think the fundamental reason that science and technology are so closely linked is because we really don’t know what “truth” is. A scientific model is not “true” so much as it is “useful”. In a sense, general and special relativity really did not become “true” to most people until GPS. Newtonian physics really became “true” when it was used to calculate accurate artillery tables. Pasteur’s germ theory really became “true” when antiseptic surgery saved lives. Without the grounding in usefulness, science as knowledge for its own sake, ends up becoming theology, where we argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin based on the presumed Mind of God, or whether there is a single Universe or a disparate Multiverse based on how elegant the Math becomes.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Yeah, when you read these rants on "instrumentality" of science what you realize is that it's just apologia of literary studies degree holders to convince others of the importance of their diploma.

techbio 6y ago

The letters of the acronym "STEM" should be capitalized, as they are in the article title.

wwww4all 6y ago

The latest scientific, technological, engineering, financial innovation is becoming more ruthless, efficient, rent seeking middlemen. Is it good for science that the richest, most valuable companies in the world, that are worth Trillions of dollars and generate Billions in revenue, are basically slum lords renting out some pixels on screen? Is it good for society that thousands of engineering hours are spent on getting the boner pill ad faster to you by few milliseconds?

fortran77 6y ago

And, in addition to blurring the line between Science and Technology, there's the "STEAM" movement which just makes everything a blurry mess.