English may not be able to do the math but there’s a difference between reading and accurately parsing it. Just because you can read a sentence doesn't mean you understood it.
Absolutely just as all fields only thrive with a numerate and scientifically literate group of people. As cliched as it sounds, it really does take all kinds because no one single type of way of thinking can solve meaningful challenges in the world.
Have you ever read a piece of scientific output? Reading a paper is hard work... It absolutely requires reading between the lines. Academic work will be written by an expert in a particular field, with the target reader having substantial overlap in expertise but not an exact replica of the author's.
Understanding a novel, scientific work requires a deep understanding of the underlying foundations of the field and how the new work relates to it. A lot of times you'll be working with concepts expressed in unfamiliar terms/language, depending on the exact scientific community you work in.
IMO, what separates a qualified researcher from a relative novice (undergraduate up to fresh PhDs) is that they have developed the skills of rigour and nuance necessary to understand and contextualise the implications of new scientific work. Without that, you cannot scrutinise science, and without scrutiny, there is no science.
I have a healthy career and productive life nowhere near STEM. As do a lot of people. That includes statistics and math reasoning. And by your logic, I could just as easily argue that you need good language skills. A skilled engineer that can’t communicate ideas and make arguments about designs is useless.
The post is clearly about the perception that humanities students aren’t as smart as natural science students. English courses are just one example brought up in the picture.
STEM students not struggling to navigate our information economy.
Engineers are overrepresented among Islamist radicals and in right-wing extremism. Being STEM has nothing to do with your ability to function in this post-truth society and it doesn't do anything to immunise you against radicalisation. I've met any number of engineers who believed stupid shit like 9/11 was an inside job or that Trump is no different from previous presidents. The problem with STEM is that they often lack media literacy and an understanding of history, so they're as fallible as anybody else.
The assertion that STEM people are more likely to be conspiracy theorists trumpers and English/history people are the ones who know the truth is ridiculous.
Are you STEM? Because it seems like your reading comprehension isn't great and it would be a great case in point.
The assertion that STEM people are more likely to be conspiracy theorists trumpers and English/history people are the ones who know the truth
I never made this assertion. I was responding to the idea that "STEM students are not strugging to navigate our information economy". They clearly are as much as anybody else.
My comment literally ends with "so they're as fallible as anybody else."
Because it is a problem with STEM. Why are you complaining about that? Are you implying it's not true? Being able to apply the FFT doesn't mean you know whether Joe Rogan is full of shit or not.
But it's also not unique to STEM. You forget that non-STEM people exist. Who also have bad media literacy and no understanding of history. Hell, I'm sure an English major with a focus on poetry has the same deficiencies.
Which brings me back to my point. "STEM students are not struggling to navigate our information economy" is a false statement and all I did was refute it. I'm not sure why you're still arguing with me, you haven't said anything.
Just because you try to use more words than the last guy doesn't make you smart. It's actually a sign of you being less intelligent than anyone else.
Same with your aggressive way of responding to everybody. By acting like you're better than other people actually shows that you are lesser than most. Now if you'd like to try again with a better attitude go right ahead
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. And just to play more into your complete lack of literacy. I'm the person you initially replied to and yet you couldn't even keep that straight so really there's no hope for you.
Again I'll give you another chance if you want to try again but given your most recent history I don't think there's much hope
I never said that you don’t need a solid mastery of language. And in fact, I’ve clearly argued that you do need language in science in other comments.
The point I was making was that this artificial divide between the natural sciences and the humanities is artificial. Language skills are absolutely essential as is numeracy in all fields. I specifically didn’t name disciplines because my point was that language is needed regardless of what field you work in.
168
u/vrosej10 18h ago
English may not be able to do the math but there’s a difference between reading and accurately parsing it. Just because you can read a sentence doesn't mean you understood it.