4 ms·
I see this as an argument for adding more STEM to every degree plan. There's unavoidable crossover, and people need intuition to properly question unfounded cla
by MetaWhirledPeas 5y ago
I see this as an argument for adding more STEM to every degree plan. There's unavoidable crossover, and people need intuition to properly question unfounded claims.
- wbsss4412 5y agoUnfortunately I’m not sure that STEM in and of itself is the antidote. It’s very easy to just routinely apply methods without properly reasoning about the underlying assumptions.
- MetaWhirledPeas 5y agoThe less exposure one has to these concepts the more tempting it becomes to skip the reasoning part.
- wbsss4412 5y agoTrue, but there is an upper bound to the amount of exposure one can receive before they are simply a STEM major, rather than another major with more STEM exposure.
- klabb3 5y agoBe careful what you wish for. Increasing the competence of fraudsters will simply make fraud harder to detect. Had the original theory simply included a "measured" coefficient, the debunking would have been much weaker and never made it into a gotcha story for bystanders to enjoy. This was sloppy from the outset. What we need isn't stronger technical skills, but strong self-correction mechanisms and incentive structures. (Ironically, the management consultant who orchestrated this whole ploy is in the field of group psychology - so perhaps it was performance art all along)
- FredPret 5y agoBut you shouldn’t be able to get a degree in a soft “science” without demonstrating that you can apply disciplined thinking by passing some proper STEM courses.
- wbsss4412 5y agoNominally, that is already the case.
- pvarangot 5y agoI think if you add more STEM people will use mathematical models incorrectly even more because they'll feel more confident about understanding the tools they don't.
- Domenic_S 5y ago> Additionally, Fredrickson references a textbook called Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and an Introduction to Chaos, a book Sokal says “is aimed at upper-level undergraduates in mathematics, physics and related disciplines.” > “If she had studied 1/10th of what she said she studied,” says Sokal, “she would have seen right through Losada.” The author making the bad claims seems to have a pretty decent math education. Or she's lying about what she studied...
- MetaWhirledPeas 5y agoThe real people in need of STEM were all those reading the original paper. Those seeking to be published could substitute ill intent for ignorance.
- SeanLuke 5y agoIsn't psychology part of STEM?
- Quikinterp 5y agoIt's a social science so no I don't think most people would consider it part of STEM.
- cwkoss 5y agoPsychologists absolutely argue that they should be included in STEM.
- SeanLuke 5y agoSocial science is a science. That's the S in STEM.
- captainredbeard 5y ago> Social science is a science Wake me up when social science can reproduce their studies and I'll consider it a science. Until then, I consider it akin to "humours".
- SeanLuke 5y agoPopperism is not, and has never been, the definition of science. Science is straightforwardly defined: it is a pursuit of research whose primary mechanism for gathering knowledge about the world is the scientific method. Difficulties in methodology aside, social sciences primarily use the scientific method, and thus they are science.
- captainredbeard 5y agoYes, people call it science. Is it reliable? No. Therefore it's mostly irrelevant and at most it's an aid for strategy not tactics.
- mhh__ 5y agoHalf of British MPs can't calculate the probability of getting two heads in a row from a fair coin. It'll kill us one day.