Apply the fruits of the study of the Humanities and Arts to STEM subjects WHILE in the course of the study itself. Problem solved. It's not a question of either one or the other, but a balance of both.
She overstates her case. Science and engineering can also educate people in critical thinking. Just think about how scientific theories are held up to empirical testing and the discipline of engineering includes the notion of quality control and investigation of engineering failures.
within the framework and boundaries of laws, rules and equations, does such an exercise takes place in mechanical 'technical sciences'. Not that it does not happen in Arts or Commerce, like in economics etc. but she is specifically referring to Humanities and technical sciences, drawing comparisons betweqen these two specific extremes. R&D in fields anew is what she is referring to, and where there is obvious and real possibility of the critical, thinking happening with the thresholds of that strict discipline, humanities as a discipline works on no foundations of such thresholds, making it by nature very open, inclusive and groundbreaking. Again, this can and does happen in few sectors of R&D, but she is talking about working in frameworks of only technical mechanical sciences
More than critical thinking, she further talks about sympathy and empathy, which are crucial in the abilities of citizenship and are needed to see people as ends-in-themselves rather than simply means to an end. This is essential in gaining insight in other people's lives, something that is championed in the arts and humanities. In her book, she's also careful to not overstate her case as she actually says that the arts and humanities are just as important as the sciences; however, the crisis comes with the imbalance of cutting away from the former while giving higher importance to the latter when in fact they are just equal.
Not on a Humanistic scale nor in its manner. Problem solving is not critical thinking. Questioning why or whether the problem should need to be solved in the first place. That's critical thinking.
Yet, somehow the graduates of STEM programs insist on working for tobacco companies, weapons manufacturers, and companies that eat up other companies, load them with debt, declare bankruptcy, and screw over all their employees. If you've seen "The Social Dilemma," it's filled with the mea culpas of tech bro geniuses that cut their teeth at places with terrifying names, like the "Stanford Persuasive Technologies Lab." STEM programs teach instrumental critical thought. A type of critical thinking that is perfectly comfortable with dismissing ethical factors as meaningless data with little bearing on technical questions.
Apply the fruits of the study of the Humanities and Arts to STEM subjects WHILE in the course of the study itself. Problem solved. It's not a question of either one or the other, but a balance of both.
She overstates her case. Science and engineering can also educate people in critical thinking. Just think about how scientific theories are held up to empirical testing and the discipline of engineering includes the notion of quality control and investigation of engineering failures.
within the framework and boundaries of laws, rules and equations, does such an exercise takes place in mechanical 'technical sciences'. Not that it does not happen in Arts or Commerce, like in economics etc. but she is specifically referring to Humanities and technical sciences, drawing comparisons betweqen these two specific extremes. R&D in fields anew is what she is referring to, and where there is obvious and real possibility of the critical, thinking happening with the thresholds of that strict discipline, humanities as a discipline works on no foundations of such thresholds, making it by nature very open, inclusive and groundbreaking. Again, this can and does happen in few sectors of R&D, but she is talking about working in frameworks of only technical mechanical sciences
More than critical thinking, she further talks about sympathy and empathy, which are crucial in the abilities of citizenship and are needed to see people as ends-in-themselves rather than simply means to an end. This is essential in gaining insight in other people's lives, something that is championed in the arts and humanities.
In her book, she's also careful to not overstate her case as she actually says that the arts and humanities are just as important as the sciences; however, the crisis comes with the imbalance of cutting away from the former while giving higher importance to the latter when in fact they are just equal.
@@samrddhimishra5115 I don't think so. Scientists and engineers often have to think out of the box to figure out what's going wrong.
Not on a Humanistic scale nor in its manner. Problem solving is not critical thinking. Questioning why or whether the problem should need to be solved in the first place. That's critical thinking.
Yet, somehow the graduates of STEM programs insist on working for tobacco companies, weapons manufacturers, and companies that eat up other companies, load them with debt, declare bankruptcy, and screw over all their employees.
If you've seen "The Social Dilemma," it's filled with the mea culpas of tech bro geniuses that cut their teeth at places with terrifying names, like the "Stanford Persuasive Technologies Lab."
STEM programs teach instrumental critical thought. A type of critical thinking that is perfectly comfortable with dismissing ethical factors as meaningless data with little bearing on technical questions.
Not for Profit? Doesn't Martha Nussbaum charge over $10.000 per talk to deliver banalities?
Nah she just grabs shekels and promoted white genocide