4 ms·

I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? If they're there to form part of a liberal arts education, to giv

I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? If they're there to form part of a liberal arts education, to give young adults a broad experience in different fields alongside literature, art etc then great - I'm all for liberal arts education. But the parent set STEM aside as being especially and specifically important - which I disagree with. The only things that are especially and specifically important are those that will be useful in your life.

dspillett 5y ago
> I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? The last couple of years certainly highlight the problems caused when people aren't given, or don't pay any attention to, a certain level of education in biology... The general understanding of scientific methods of enquiry/study/critique is also essential for modern life IMO, and sadly lacking in many very vocal and otherwise high profile people.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  if you're talking about anti-vaxxers - that's not caused by lack of education. I don't know that much about viral transmission either, neither do you, or 99% or the people who are taking the vaccine, masking up and so on. The difference is primarily cultural - trusting versus not trusting the government & scientific advisors. All these anti-vaxx people haven't been failed by a lack of scientific education, they just don't trust the motives of the government - and that's not remedied by more alka seltzer volcanoes in school.
  - spadros 5y ago
    I disagree. I'd be willing to bet that the better educated a populous is, the higher the vaccination rates would be. I also believe that it's not a high bar to expect people to understand basic physics and biology and chemistry before being called an "adult". The info may not be immediately pragmatically useful, but people being less ignorant in general cannot be detrimental to society. How much can I trust someone that doesn't understand that feathers and rocks fall at the same speed, it's merely the air resistance that changes it? How many centuries back do we have to go before we consider something mandatory information?
penjelly 5y ago
so, liberal arts > STEM in your eyes? I see it the opposite..
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  that's not what liberal arts education means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education but no, I weigh them comparably, depending on the specific "arts" you mean. Maths > painting, but philosophy > chemistry.
  - penjelly 5y ago
    > thats not what liberal arts education mean i didnt provide a definition for liberal arts. also your own link is contradictory to your earlier comments... > Academic areas that are associated with the term liberal arts include: Life sciences (biology, ecology, neuroscience) Physical science (physics, astronomy, chemistry, physical geography) Logic, mathematics, statistics, computer science Philosophy History Social science (anthropology, economics, human geography, linguistics, political science, jurisprudence, psychology, and sociology) Creative arts (fine arts, music, performing arts, literature) this states that philosophy and biology are both liberal arts. Along with physics and other STEM topics. Linking this implies you agree that STEM is important, as much so as Philosophy, which i agree is an important topic along with all those in this link.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I think general education is useful, yes - but I was responding to a comment that was hyping up STEM as especially important. Aside from maths, I don't think that's correct.
      - spadros 5y ago
        Your examples seem to all be contradictory though. It seems you have your own barometer for value that doesn't line up with your arguments.

dspillett 5y ago

> I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? The last couple of years certainly highlight the problems caused when people aren't given, or don't pay any attention to, a certain level of education in biology... The general understanding of scientific methods of enquiry/study/critique is also essential for modern life IMO, and sadly lacking in many very vocal and otherwise high profile people.

beaconstudios 5y ago
if you're talking about anti-vaxxers - that's not caused by lack of education. I don't know that much about viral transmission either, neither do you, or 99% or the people who are taking the vaccine, masking up and so on. The difference is primarily cultural - trusting versus not trusting the government & scientific advisors. All these anti-vaxx people haven't been failed by a lack of scientific education, they just don't trust the motives of the government - and that's not remedied by more alka seltzer volcanoes in school.
- spadros 5y ago
  I disagree. I'd be willing to bet that the better educated a populous is, the higher the vaccination rates would be. I also believe that it's not a high bar to expect people to understand basic physics and biology and chemistry before being called an "adult". The info may not be immediately pragmatically useful, but people being less ignorant in general cannot be detrimental to society. How much can I trust someone that doesn't understand that feathers and rocks fall at the same speed, it's merely the air resistance that changes it? How many centuries back do we have to go before we consider something mandatory information?

penjelly 5y ago

so, liberal arts > STEM in your eyes? I see it the opposite..

beaconstudios 5y ago
that's not what liberal arts education means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education but no, I weigh them comparably, depending on the specific "arts" you mean. Maths > painting, but philosophy > chemistry.
- penjelly 5y ago
  > thats not what liberal arts education mean i didnt provide a definition for liberal arts. also your own link is contradictory to your earlier comments... > Academic areas that are associated with the term liberal arts include: Life sciences (biology, ecology, neuroscience) Physical science (physics, astronomy, chemistry, physical geography) Logic, mathematics, statistics, computer science Philosophy History Social science (anthropology, economics, human geography, linguistics, political science, jurisprudence, psychology, and sociology) Creative arts (fine arts, music, performing arts, literature) this states that philosophy and biology are both liberal arts. Along with physics and other STEM topics. Linking this implies you agree that STEM is important, as much so as Philosophy, which i agree is an important topic along with all those in this link.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I think general education is useful, yes - but I was responding to a comment that was hyping up STEM as especially important. Aside from maths, I don't think that's correct.
    - spadros 5y ago
      Your examples seem to all be contradictory though. It seems you have your own barometer for value that doesn't line up with your arguments.