this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
160 points (85.4% liked)

Games

32488 readers
167 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

but... this is not the math you see at STEM, this is the math you see at high school at best. There's no deeper meaning in actual STEM math problems, they are way too abstract or specific. There's no watermelons, it's just some a, b, n1, nk... maybe some physics formulas that apply to velocity, mass... I read 0 problems in my uni math and physics courses where they used real world examples.

I see your point but that's for high schoolers, not STEM students or alumnus.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's weird. I credit my scientific education with waking me up to questioning stuff. Like when you learn about how we know stuff, the limits of proof (e.g. can't prove empiricism is "true" it just works extremely well for certain things), how hard it is to wrangle stuff into scientific questions and so on the elephant in the room is how fucking impossible most questions are.

Then you get thinking about how untested most of society is, how many different ways there are to interpret things, how unknowable the "goodness" of your preferences is and so on.

Yet, in the same cohort as me there were a lot of people coming out extremely certain of their own worldview and blindly faithful in technocrats and the mystical power of throwing data at stuff to solve enormous problems. Like we are anywhere near being able to calculate out a human society.

So idk, I think it's less stem vs not stem and education quality and kinds of people/where they're at in life. You could probably go through a lit crit course and come out blinkered too, being able to do lit crit doesn't guarantee you'd have good opinions.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is what bothered me in the original discussion, making it seem like being in STEM somehow doesn't prepare you at all for critical thinking in general. On the contrary, I believe too there are people who develop it in part because of the S in there. It's not necessary, but it's an important tool.

Hopefully people don't need a college degree in literature to understand basic subtext. We ask kindergarteners to do that with Dr Seuss.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

Hopefully people don't need a college degree in literature to understand basic subtext.

I think it's about learning that it's worth doing more than anything else.

My physics dissertation was actually about how many watermelons you can fit in a 1996 Honda Accord.