Where the hell did this opinion come from? And why do STEMlords like to tout it around like it's the truth?
Math and the sciences are important…except for the medical fields and the soft sciences
Hudson Green
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
apa.org
twitter.com
Anthony Powell
Samuel Wilson
Internet beta males trying to compensate for their low test
Jackson Green
I think hardly any scientists think that medical fields are not important. Nor would they say this about soft sciences, depending on your definition of "soft science". Biology is a soft science. Obviously, people aren't going to take things like sociology too seriously if you want to call that a social science.
Justin Green
oops
Michael Davis
for decades stemfags have been raised with the belief that technology is god, the free market is absolute and they are a new generation of ubermensch destined to become rich. Stemlords hate the soft sciences because they think the most important thing in life is making money and writing poetry doesn't make you lots of money.
Andrew King
Agreed, any respectable scientist wouldn't hold these views, and they certainly wouldn't show contempt towards these fields.
Remember OP, some random guy on the internet =/= a scientist. Most scientists do their own thing.
Connor Morgan
The market is already saturated with STEMlords, give it another 5 to 10 years and we will see a lot of rage.
Josiah Lopez
I don't think it's even true of the average person.
Brandon Nguyen
I wonder is STEMlords (by which I mean engineers and computer scientists) will become reactionary nationalists or socialists after they get hit with the iron law of wages.
Hunter Williams
The average person probably thinks sociology and Liberal arts are trash
Jace Rogers
What went wrong?
Christopher Powell
I mean, most of them are already lowkey Nazis
Ian King
This is a complete caricature. If you're including things like sociology and psychology, they're derided by practically everyone outside of that particular field, not just internet STEMlords. This is mainly because social sciences and humanities don't deliver any clear results. You can explain to the average person, in a dumbed down way, the latest major discoveries in physics, chemistry, biology, and so on. You can't really do this for humanities and social sciences except economics, and the track record of economics is rather poor at the moment, since the few things they agree on are widely regarded as bad by the general public.
Caleb Fisher
autism
Cameron Cruz
Our scientists stopped being Jewish.
Lol but really though, you can't compare modern day pop scientists to towering figures like Bohr or Heisenberg.
Ethan Russell
What's wrong with Bill Nye's statement? I think he's simply saying that he disagrees with universal skepticism and/or solipsism.
Oliver Rogers
For starters, there's like 1.5 actual scientists in that picture.
Juan Miller
on the right side, that is.
Jayden Morales
Seems like a lack of humility, which is often a sign of a muh privileged and sheltered upbringing.
Parents should have used Hampshire Nannies.
Asher Scott
It has more to do with the increasingly large barriers to entry in science (you have to know more) and competitiveness (any time not spent on research might be the difference between getting tenured or getting denied tenure). basically, a lot of scientists don't have the time to read philosophy. A lot of modern philosophy is also obscuritanist and difficult to understand, while also expecting the reader to have a thorough knowledge of previous philosophers. You can start learning quantum mechanics with weak knowledge of classical physics, but the same doesn't seem to be true of modern philosophy.
Connor Williams
Economics has less predicitive power than random chance.
It should not even be reguarded as a social science right now, perhaps the new keynesian methodology and the work being done to promote plurality in heterodox economics can lead to a sound basis in the future but right now economics is only intellectually legitimate as a pure academic feild.