/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11778696

21KiB, 300x242, liberal-arts.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 17:18:11 2020 No.11778696 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11778717 >>11778726 >>11778729 >>11778731 >>11778742 >>11778743 >>11778763 >>11778906 >>11778910 >>11778926 >>11779159 >>11780879 >>11781067

Why are engineers, scientists, and mathematicians considered smart by society but people who do philosophy or literature aren't? Engineering, science, and math are worthwhile endeavors but so are philosophy and literature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:23:47 No.11778715 Report

Quoted By: >>11778742

I think it's because STEM knowledge is mostly constructive in the sense that to understand the deeper concepts you need a lot of pre-concepts. That's not the case with humanities for example, where most knowledge is independent of each other and the concepts aren't as abstract as in STEM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:24:29 No.11778717 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
The belief in the divorce of the natural sciences and all-encompassing philosophical systems are a modern phenomena.
You know what I mean, a scientist worth his salts should have a personal philosophy with which they try to frame the descriptions of the World provided by their study of natural sciences.
Only someone on the outside looking in would think that’s changed since the enlightenment era.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IQ per board.jpg, 410KiB, 2000x2000

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:25:46 No.11778723 Report

Quoted By: >>11778775 >>11778845 >>11778874 >>11781093

What?
We all see /lit/ as smarter than us.

Modern Philosophers are the ones in advertising manipulating people into buying overpriced crap
Modern literature is dead. Barely anything could match up to the quality of real literature made by an author who did his research about how society works and why it works that way

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:26:05 No.11778726 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
Americans disdain intellectualism so the only way to be an intellectual without coming off as pretentious is to have a practical career.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:27:09 No.11778729 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
Engineering, science, and math are more useful for making money

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:27:53 No.11778731 Report

Quoted By: >>11778749

>>11778696
Anecdotally, STEM folks succeed in both liberal arts studies and STEM, whereas liberal arts folks cannot succeed in STEM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:31:01 No.11778742 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778715
>That's not the case with humanities for example, where most knowledge is independent of each other and the concepts aren't as abstract as in STEM.
I'm not really a fan of the humanities as a whole, but this is completely false. If you read any communications in classics or philosophy, a lot of it is interconnected and builds off of each other.
>>11778696
It's the cultural forces and circumstances. Engineering and science is largely riding off the boom in social merit with postwar developments (the fridge, the packaging industry, etc.), the high pay (in engineering at the very least), and medicine. This is why mathematics is seen as "smart but not useful" despite it not being necessarily true.

Philosophy and literature do not spend money on PR for their fields. Hell, even only high energy physics and cosmology spend for PR - condensed matter physics feels as though its questions are well motivated enough not to have carl sagan talk about it on TV.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:31:03 No.11778743 Report

Quoted By: >>11778754

>>11778696
>but people who do philosophy or literature aren't?
the prestige liberal arts have been severely hurt by people who just want to coast and party through college. Also the addition of grievance studies. It is very unfortunate in my opinion

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:32:44 No.11778749 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778731
>whereas liberal arts folks cannot succeed in STEM.
I'd believe you if Ed Witten, trained first as a linguist, hadn't won the fields medal.
What are we defining as "succeed" here? Getting a grade in university != meaningful work in the field

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:34:39 No.11778754 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778743
>the prestige liberal arts have been severely hurt by people who just want to coast and party through college.
this is true
> Also the addition of grievance studies.
I don't think there's anything *inherently* wrong with something like gender studies, but that the undergrad-to-grad pipeline is based largely for people who were too lazy for sociology and statistics. Ideally, something like gender / women's studies would be a graduate concentration after having a rigorous base in sociological theory and statistical interference. Unfortunately. the amount of third rate researchers in that field are down to appeals to dogma rather than appeals to procedure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:38:14 No.11778763 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
fun fact, this isn't always true. often it's the opposite, and most "abstract" (kek) studies are considered for the elite, while STEM are considered the "dirty but necessary" ones. it really depends on the context. either way it's just circlejerking. don't pay attention to it and study whatever you want. that doesn't make you more or less intelligent

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 17:44:30 No.11778775 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778723
>"you should always concede your point if talking to somene more intellectually priviledged than yourself"
>no souce
>nothing on how the study was conducted

provide more info or bring this shit out of here

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:10:02 No.11778845 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778723
>"You should always concede your point if talking to somene more intellectually priviledged than yourself."

>Don't challenge my ego. Let me remain ignorant to the analogous universe around me and you to always read as uninformed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:22:36 No.11778874 Report

Quoted By: >>11780946

>>11778723
I see /po/ is too far right for this image

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:32:22 No.11778906 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
The arts train you to think of raw data as something to be all woven together in a pattern. It's like the Da Vinci Code version of math. The sciences train you to think of raw data as something to be chiseled away and mostly discarded as useless. The latter way of interpreting data tends to mirror real life better, so the people who think that way are generally perceived as "smarter."

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:33:20 No.11778910 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696

Utilitarianism.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1591618291829.jpg, 40KiB, 616x472

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:37:03 No.11778926 Report

Quoted By: >>11778944 >>11778955

>>11778696
Because whatever your average philosophy major has thought of, Socrates, Kierkegaard and whoever else did well before him. A Scientist can be a Philosopher, but a modern day "Philosopher" is just a waste of space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:41:47 No.11778944 Report

Quoted By: >>11778968

>>11778926
This applies to STEM and every other field too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:44:31 No.11778955 Report

Quoted By: >>11778968

>>11778926
BS.
You're telling me that you can sell those luxury garbage without knowing how people think?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:45:58 No.11778961 Report

Quoted By:

Literature, and nowadays, philosophy, are both perceived to not be as rigorous as stem fields and mostly fields for expressive, non-structured thought

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:47:07 No.11778968 Report

Quoted By: >>11778995

>>11778944
Yes, but Humanities faggots are on average more braindead than the average
>DOOD I LUV SCIZNXCE
STEMfag.
>>11778955
I could, I've got a Silver Tongue. I get what you mean, but Philosophy is just a dead end because we're at a point where there's nothing more to be thought of without radical societal changes and scientific truths impacting the world.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO +_6a54cb5b4c1b1ad0024ab3a6005a0bac.jpg, 18KiB, 326x223

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 18:54:34 No.11778995 Report

Quoted By: >>11779111

>>11778968
Define dead, bro
Philosophy is a required subject for medic field because you are going to face the worst case scenario
Politicians with knowledge in philosophy makes the best
In fact, any subject would be improved by philosophy because it is focused on how everyone thinks and how to control it. Annd how not to be mnipulated.

This may come as a surprise but in the world of informtion, people are too drowned in shallow leisures to have time for self-reflection and thus get manipulated fairly easily.

Everyone don't know that there is more to life than tpoics of sex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 19:29:14 No.11779111 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778995
Those are good points, but that's what I'm talking about. A STEMfag is more likely to break his conditioning and ask such questions, than a Humanitiesfag. Most of them don't care about anything, they just want to repeat mantras and hang around making poor observations. The fact of the matter is that since they have no scientific knowledge, in any form, they don't really have a good grasp on the universe itself and thus cannot ask any meaningful questions that haven't been asked already. And it'll take some grand societal change to make us view the world as we know it differently, thus birthing new branches of philosophy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jun 2020 19:42:20 No.11779159 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
Professors and public figures in philosophy and literature *are* considered smart by society. STEM undergrads disdain the humanities because they aren’t technically rigorous and have no analytical value or predictive power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 04:31:22 No.11780879 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
Its very different kinds of knowledge. Science helps you make predictions.
The second Historians start making accurate predictions about wars and politics they are taken very seriously by politicians and by think-tanks and by oil companies.
Science isn’t a subject but a method of developing models which make predictions.
If literature students managed to predict how to suspend disbelief they could make fortunes writing advertising.
But Historians and Literature students don’t apply math to their subject and thus have nothing to measure experimentally. Sociologists do so extremely sloppily, they are terrible at making hypotheses, and also, as a separate point, often unashamedly dogmatically trying to validate fancied theories rather than find truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 04:53:49 No.11780946 Report

Quoted By: >>11781594

>>11778874
Wtf do you have against /po/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 05:36:33 No.11781062 Report

Quoted By:

>>11781057
Because humanities teach you which sources are reliable. STEM teaches you to be a source.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 05:37:35 No.11781067 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778696
Because humanities teach you which sources are reliable. STEM teaches you to be a source.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 05:46:48 No.11781093 Report

Quoted By:

>>11778723
lol why doesnt the chart have uncertianty bars

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jun 2020 10:33:19 No.11781594 Report

Quoted By:

>>11780946
Hehe. I was saying that po is so intelligent they don't fit into the image. They are too far right.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches