I can see the worry with vaccination, as it directly affects everyone, but does everyone necessarily have to agree on the other two issues?
Is it a real issue if someone is doing really good things for society, being an excellent person, but happens to disagree with you about evolution or climate change?
Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything, and treat scientific papers as the bible (They also cherry pick the scientific papers they like, and ignore the ones they don't, just like religious folks do).
Also, the link you cite for climate change is 404, but I would expect the only real bone of contention is whether any change in the climate is caused by humans or not. Are there really people who deny the climate is changing?
You're being a little dramatic. "People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress" ... Honestly... The cool thing about science is that whether you think gravity is real or not you will still fall. Progress will always be made in due time..
I present to you Texas science textbooks and their treatment of the theory of evolution. Or shall we teach our future engineers that Pi is exactly 3 too? Ignorant people with influence is a terrible thing.
Large scale evolution denialism in the western world is pretty much exclusive to the U.S.
There are, of course, various smaller groups of believers and faith-based private schools that espouse creationism, but it is certainly not very prevalent.
It's extremely hard for me to imagine how my quality of life would improve if my neighbor started believing in evolution. Perhaps you can provide an example?
Its about an educated and critical thinking public. A public that approaches everything with a critical eye is less susceptible to political pandering and more accepting of good science and evidence/data based laws. The average person doesn't know how to interpret a bar graph and has no clue what a good source of data looks like. Agreeing on a specific point, such as evolution, is just a symptom of the larger problem.
Sure: People who don't believe in evolution can taint those around them especially the young, which could cause those to not pursue scientific careers, setting back further progress in those fields and pushing forward the next discoveries in fields like cancer, life-lengthening, and other diseases. These "potential setbacks of breakthroughs" hurts society's quality of life.
You would be less likely to get an antibiotic-resistant infection in the future, because an understanding of evolution is necessary to understand how massive application of antibiotics can lead to more resistant bacteria in the future.
You would be more likely to survive a pandemic in the future because there would be more public support for research into how diseases evolve.
There would be less racial strife because more people would understand that the differences we see in people lie on a continuous genetic spectrum, not broken up in distinct "races."
I don't think excessive antibiotic use is exclusive to those who don't believe in evolution, but thanks for at least providing a few concrete examples instead of more hand hand waving.
You're probably going to die from cancer or heart disease.
Even if you just look at environmental factors, we're more likely to die either from the bee population dying due to pesticides, or because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production. Neither of which really get much media attention, maybe because they're both issues caused by science, and people like cheap food.
But at the end of the day we're going to die from overcrowding . The population has doubled in the last 30 years. (Hence why science has to make horrible dangerous food to feed them all).
Whether your fellow man believes in global warming is pretty irrelevant, and whether he believes in evolution is even less relevant to anything that matters. You're certainly not going to die from global warming!
Your comment is the sort of "scientific fundamentalism" I was talking about.
> because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production
Which is dangerous because it leads bacteria to evolve away from the antibiotics, becoming harder to stop in humans. Antibiotic resistance is one of the issues hurt by the poor understanding of evolution.
Anyway, the general problem is that people don't have an understanding of science in general necessary to understand issues on which the government must make public policy. It's like trying to drive a car somewhere without knowing how to read street signs or a map.
First world countries are not overcrowded. Scientific progress (increase food production, improved medicine and care) is the reason you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago.
Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea.
Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down.
And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.
The fact that you were born today means that you will be shielded, either fully or partially, from many of the factors that made the average lifespan 30 years shorter 2 centuries ago, infant mortality included. The lack of these factors would then lead to you "probably" having a 30 year longer lifespan ("probably" in the statistical sense).
You could argue that a more robust statistic like a median would provide a better representation of the expected lifespan less drastically affected by outliers, but calling the 30 year difference in average lifespan "meaningless" is disingenuous at best and could represent a fundamental denial of basic empirical evidence at worst (the latter of which seems more likely to me judging from some of your other replies so far on this subject).
People living in cities are healthier and less obese than their counterparts living in the suburbs, rural areas, and small towns.
The best way to improve your life is to look to science. Please stop spreading ignorance around. You're actively working to hold society's progress back.
Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective.
Global warming is another issue that affects everyone, so it does matter in the way you described.
>Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything
If "not believing in evolution or global warming" isn't a real issue for society, I don't understand how "believing too much in science" can be a real issue. Senators and other powerful politicians deny global warming and evolution to demonstrably negative effects. I haven't seen any evidence that the /r/atheism-style fundamentalism is having any effect on the world besides being pompous and annoying.
I'm also assuming that you're criticizing the vagueness of giving 'science' as an answer to big problems as some internet atheists might be wont to do. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're criticizing.
Although it's only one case, here's an NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-de...) discussing the governor of Florida's policy to avoid the term 'climate change'. Not sure if denying usage of the term is equivalent to denying its existence, but hopefully it's something.
denying any truth is a flaw in thinking. it matters less materially than vaccination in that I don't have to worry about the spread of a disease which may infect me or my children.
just because someones beliefs don't directly cause me harm, doesn't imply that those believes are immune from criticism. especially on correctness grounds.
It isn't really about scientific ignorance but as to what tribe(s) you belong to or what authorities you trust.
To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God.
Most people on HN didn't reasoned out the chain of evidence that lead to us to believe in evolution, yet they probably believe in the theory of evolution.
"To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God."
Once again, no. Stop spreading this tripe. Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine. This is the kind of statement that tries to create a conflict where one shouldn't be.
> Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine.
Of course they are, they have to adapt. Who would go to church if they still insisted that the sun revolves around the earth? Just goes to show that God begins where true knowledge ends.
In 2015, there are people who treat women as subhuman beings due to religious reasons. Please tell me more how religion doesn't go hand-in-hand with ignorance.
US isn't the only country in the world, and Christianity isn't the only religion. Christianity has been (and continues to be) watered down to be able to exist in modern western society, that is why you are able to say that it's not at odds with science. Back in the day, if you dared questioning the geocentric model, you'd be burned at the stake.
They absolutely are, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Scientific descriptions of reality are required to adhere to strong principles of information conservation. Religious beliefs are, both by definition and in practice, required to reject such principles. If that isn't 'incompatibility,' then the word is meaningless.
This article is conflating two different ideas; that we should have more students studying STEM subjects, and that students should have a narrower (and more STEM-focused) education.
You can disagree with either of these proposals (and I disagree with both), but it is wrong to set up one as a straw-man to argue against the other.
There is little-to-nothing to be gained by trying to entice reluctant students into fields with high unemployment and stagnant wages in the face of STEM majors leaving their respective fields in droves.
I have seen this argument a lot, and it doesn't hold water.
Those STEM majors leaving the field often get salaries higher than people who majored in that field going into it. It seems that these employers value the STEM education moreso than people who major in the same field.
Second, it is entirely possible that these STEM majors voluntarily left the STEM field. More people are doing STEM but that doesn't mean more people are passionate about STEM. Engineering isn't for everyone, and I myself have thought about leaving the field and going elsewhere not because I can't find a job but because I want to.
The burden of proof is on the pro-STEMmers to show that we really do need a bunch more STEM majors, not on the rest of us to prove we don't.
Edit: and are you sure that your higher-wages claim (source?) is not just evidence that STEM majors act as an effective filter for the smart and driven.
Quote: "People in STEM jobs benefit from being in such high demand. Study[1] after study[2] confirms that STEM professionals get paid more than non-STEM professionals -- often much more -- even when you control for their education and other factors. Contrary to Charette's claim that STEM wages have stagnated, reports from Georgetown, the Commerce Department[3], and the Information Technology Innovation Foundation[4] show that they have risen faster than non-STEM wages, even in recent years. That is a sign that employers are feeling the pinch."
A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity.
Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience. So it's no real wonder that broad, general education has fallen out of favor.
What countries do a better job of fostering creativity and critical thinking? Every culture has its sacred cows. The idea of an environment that's fully tolerant and welcoming towards any and all dissent is, as far as I can tell, a myth.
Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal. Although I must admit that some recent developments on college campuses with regards to freedom of speech are troubling.
> Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal.
In university, yes, after 13 years of the exact opposite.
At least here in Canada, it's too late by the time students get to university.
The high schools have already selected for obedience and rote memorization skills when sorting their students for university admission. That and rich cheaters who can afford to purchase higher grades by taking accredited night classes.
> Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience.
Really?
I never got downgraded for giving an answer that the teacher disagreed with, rather I was given good marks for being able to clearly present my side of a discussion.
For the classes I took that were subjective, History, English (in regards to literary critiques), etc, it was made quite clear that what was most valued was our ability to made a well reasoned and well thought out argument.
I had teachers who would frequently play devil's advocate and argue against any position a student took up, with the same teacher taking opposite sides of an issue for sequential questions asked.
Highlights of Middle School include debating the supremacy of Roman versus Greek societal structures, studying major world religions past and present, and lots long form essays.
High School and College history classes consisted of "well here is the truth about stuff, yeah it is nasty" and the breaking down of nearly every beloved trope and fetishism of American supremacy.
But that is just my experience going through public school. :) (And of course anecdotes aren't worth much, but I don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!)
* don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!*
I don't happen to think so either. Sorry I gave that impression. I think that a bias against creativity and critical thinking exists as emergent behavior. Teachers and administrators have to get things done, there's tests to give and grade, forms to fill out, report cards to send out, and loads of standardized testing upon which schools and teachers are rated. Some random kid arguing against some question on a standardized test only disrupts the entire thing. There is a bias, I don't think you can deny it, and it's all emergent, a second order effect of other things.
They also don't pay very well. One alternative is make GE a requisite part of any education.
Graduating with a liberal arts degree leads to masses of dissatisfied students who pine of the job desirability and pay of STEM workers.
in terms of creativity, I'm pretty sure science has lots of creativity. What does 'creativity' even mean? imagination, ability to create things? What have the liberal arts given society whereas sciences have brought forth the end of diseases, solutions for all kinds of maladies, shortcoming and ills of society.
Critical thinking is paramount in science, but I think general education as an end in itself is an oversell.
You don't see china and India rushing to shore up their GE gap, do you? No, I'm pretty sure they know what pays the bills and energizes their economies.
Let me know when a liberal arts degree brings home the bacon.
Your preoccupation with paying bills that are already well and effectively paid and economies quite energized seems to obscure to you that a very large part of the purpose of a university is to turn out well-rounded human beings. While I have a CS degree (which in my school was a liberal arts degree), I credit my decision to take as few in-major classes as possible, and spend as much time in the humanities as I could, to be why I manage somehow to do very well for myself and yet claim some understanding of literature, economics, and politics.
A modern education is more than trade-school workmanship, and your rhetoric devalues it to such. You're right, in that China, India, et al. don't value that. But they as countries and cultures aren't at the same point on the cultural equivalent of Maslow's hierarchy as we are, and their actions in no way must determine ours.
It would have graduated me with less than half of the ones I had, and significantly poorer ones--one learns very little in a 100-level but might open one's brain a bit better in the right 300-level and I pushed to be in the right courses. My university had a fantastic Honors College where I learned a ton I wouldn't have picked up elsewhere, too--I was the only CS student in my year of the program and the Honors College covered most of the gen-eds so quickly that I had enough time and credit space to take classes that were more interesting and more valuable. (None of them were in CS.) I didn't finish out at the Honors College, because the CS department wouldn't play ball as far as senior projects went and I didn't have the bandwidth to do two, but it's still my most treasured time at my university.
The courses that were considered part of the humanities, at least as far as STEM folks go, were pretty questionable in general, too. My university thought "technical writing" was a good course to be part of the English curriculum for STEM majors. But "good writing" wasn't, if you follow? Nor was any sort of philosophy, more than the barest rudiments of history (in a country where primary and secondary history education is little more than heroifying the names everyone knows)...it was a dire scene. (Of the liberal arts courses I found, and continue to find valuable, only microeconomics was a required course. Incredibly valuable, though--literally every person should be comfortable with the basics of microeconomics and macroeconomics, and if anybody posting here isn't, you should drop everything and get there. It's Understanding Humans 101.)
Even as I'm working with some people involved with the school to push for better technical literacy for non-STEM people--because that's important--I am pushing on the CS department to turn out functional humans as well. "We're tech people" cannot be an excuse for social, political, historical, and economical ignorance.
I'm not against teaching/requiring GE courses for all graduates. I'm against selling liberal arts as a viable career. There are lots of people out there who studied at a liberal arts university and are unhappy with the occupations they've had to settle for because there is no market for their skills.
From my experience people go to university mainly to make themselves marketable in the broader economy, not so much to come out as well rounded individuals. People who want to be well rounded individuals typically are able to pursue those interests on their own. That's not to say that there might be an occasional student who does want to become a meaningful critical thinker, but for the most part people who go into liberal arts do it because they saw themselves as not up to par in STEM so decided to take a path of least resistance but also gave them some credibility.
The article equates STEM education
with technical "skills". This is
comparison is absurd and is
yet another attempt to
set up a straw man in order to knock
it down and to scream
(borrowing from the movie The Music Man)
"Oh we got trouble, right here
in River City. Trouble starts
with a T and that's rhymes with"
an E, and that stands for
education. So, in the movie
the guy was trying to start a
boy's band to sell musical
instruments and band uniforms,
and the OP is trying to sell
courses in philosophy and art history?
To the OP, I would suggest that
the STEM fields do better
on deep and critical thinking than
philosophy and art history.
For the US K-12 scores
in math and science and
the comparison of those scores
with South Korea, Singapore,
Finland, etc., I'd say:
The claim of the OP on these
scores is that US K-12
education needs to do better
to catch up with the other
countries.
Okay, let's consider that claim:
Compare the scores of students
in those other countries
with the scores of students
in the US with recent ancestors
from those other countries.
E.g., compare scores of students
in Finland with the scores of
students in the US with
recent ancestors from Finland.
Then are doing better comparing
the schools and not just the
cultures. So, in crude terms,
will be controlling on
country of origin.
Here the OP has yet another straw man
erected just to be knocked down.
> A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy.
It's a big strawman argument because the average American is poorly educated in STEM areas, and in philosophy and English. One area isn't being pitted against the other.
Anyway, it's a big strawman because universities have liberal arts credit requirements for science and engineering majors. You can't just load upon STEM-related courses and nothing else. (Maybe you can in some schools? That's a local problem to fix in those schools.)
A science education at a North American university exposes the human being to approximately the right does of the liberal arts.
Encouraging kids into STEM steers them in an area where they will be able to do find some kind of career, and pick up a rounded education along the way.
I don't think we need to worry about STEM being over-pushed. STEM degrees are self filtering. Math, engineering, and science are hard, and getting kids interested at science at a young age can motivate them only so far. Many will enroll, and when things get tough, a good portion will transfer to other majors.
Agreed.. If you don't really love it you will not be able to pursue a career in it. It simply wouldn't be worth your time. I am in CS regardless if its needed or not.. Its simply what I like.
I think this article sets up a straw man argument that is a little disingenuous. It seems that most of the politicians (save for a couple extremists) and everyday people who support more emphasis on STEM teaching aren't arguing it should be at the expense of the liberal arts education Americans are getting now. Sure, the focus on STEM is partially about "making America more competitive" as a whole, but I think it's even more about enabling everyday people to get reliable+productive jobs and career skills that will be important in the modern workforce for decades to come. That can only be a good thing.
A part of this obsession has to do with the fact that STEM subjects are easily measurable and tested for. Our "enlightened-meritocratic" society is obsessed with who deserves money and who doesn't. It will obviously value a math test that makes it easy to judge ability, than a philosophy essay which may improve a child's critical thinking but is a lot harder to judge.
That gets compounded with the fact that colleges are now practically vocational schools which themselves tout a "return-on-investment" as their salient feature.
The solution is quite simple: expand humanities requirements and make them stringent. Make a student take at least 1/3 of courses in non-STEM subjects.
When I was in college decades ago, engineering degrees were still really valuable, but there was also awareness that engineering was not immune to economic cycles - in fact, it was recognized that engineering had a "boom and bust" cycle. That doesn't seem to have been the case in a number of years, but I am wondering if it still might happen.
Can't really comment on America's obsession, but my business and real-life problem solving sense has definitely been empowered by the subjects I pursued in humanities & social sciences domain - rural development, organizational behavior, psychology, economics - apart from my Engineering major. I believe that technology is the backbone when it comes to large scale mobilization of a solution to a problem, but we do need the right perspectives to figure out the solution first.
I'm sick and tired of everyone saying STEM degrees don't value anything but technical understanding.
I'm also tired of posting the same rant all over the place! ;)
TL;DR of my previous HN comment on this is that my CS degree included history, writing, music, painting, philosophy, and many other fields of study, just like a degree with the letters "B.A." in it would.
But on top of that I also had to take science and math, courses which used to be considered part of a proper "liberal arts" degree!
This coming from a man caught plagiarizing his work. People won't stop getting liberal arts degrees, but we need to make sure that more people (specifically, those who might not go to college or drop out) get into these types of programs. Some people don't like writing book reviews and are more technical in nature. They just don't think higher ed is for them because they don't want to go into these liberal arts classes.
Is this what happens, when non stem majors can't find jobs ?
They villianize stem education ?
Don't most people just get degrees in stem, because they think it leads to a good job. There was an article on HN before on how students are jumping ship from law school to engineering school.
I resent the seemingly common belief that STEM and creativity are so disjoint. Every breakthrough in STEM required incredible amounts of creativity. Even average STEM workers (say, for example, a software developer) usually need to exercise creativity pretty regularly.
Similarly, I'm also bothered by the common argument that participation in sports is vital for learning to work as part of a team, as if STEM projects don't facilitate gaining such experience.
The argument is wrong in a different way too: there are non-team-sports in which you can participate by yourself just fine, while reaping all the fitness and health benefits.
Yes; it's just not the liberal arts kind of creativity where there is no objective criterion for being wrong.
You can't teach that creativity. The people with some of the most notable kinds of creativity didn't get it from sitting through some humanities courses.
There isn't always an objective criterion for being wrong in STEM either. Obviously, in some cases, like mathematical proofs, you're either correct or not (and your correctness is formally verifiable), but design of scientific experiments or design of software systems can allow as much creativity as composing a song or writing a poem. The results of these designs can sometimes be evaluated in an objective fashion, but not in all cases necessarily.
There are actually objective measures in evaluating a song or poem. Such concepts are rejected in the modern humanities and fine arts. The only thing wrong is to be "non-creative" (e.g. compose something in the baroque style, or paint realism: any form which has rules.) That is the real sin: to adhere to some obvious form which inherently demands the taboo of an objective evaluation of your work.
I resent the seemingly common belief that STEM and creativity are so disjoint.
They're not, of course, and you explained that well. I do think that there is a problem of (surprising?) STEM anti-intellectualism, especially in industry. Some programmers are literate in history, the arts, and philosophy. Some are not. The latter category seems to get our industry in so much trouble; if they understood aesthetics, they wouldn't be so dismissive of languages that aren't Java, and if they understood human nature (through history and philosophy and literature) they'd have a better understanding of why "Agile" is dishonestly-sold bullshit. My 10x aesthetic sense isn't something I was born with; it comes from being exposed to a large number of seemingly unrelated topics.
At heart, I'm a liberal arts guy. I went to a small liberal arts college (Carleton) when I had several big-name schools in the bag (e.g. a contact at Princeton) because, when I was 17, I wanted to be a writer. I was more passionate about poetry than the sciences, at the time. I majored in math, though, and was able to transition into software. I definitely think that a broad-based, liberal education is important.
All of that said, a quality liberal-arts education includes math and the sciences. After all, two of the original seven liberal arts were mathematical, a third was astronomy and a fourth was music.
There are narrow scientists and programmers, of course, and that's part of why we encounter so much nonsense in our industry, but there are narrow history and English literature people (even at high levels) as well and they're just as bad. Scientific literacy is important, and the creativity comes from exposure to a large number of fields. Like you, I reject the idea that some fields (e.g. the humanities) are more creative than others (e.g. the sciences). However, I think that people who simply refuse to learn a subject, whether it's history or the sciences, generally aren't very creative.
You clearly didn't read the article. The success the U.S. has had in being innovating in STEM fields is due to our cultural tradition of comprehensive education rooted in the liberal arts. A focus only on STEM is what gets you modern-day China, Korea, and Japan, where there are many technically skilled workers but a lower inclination to be innovative.
>The success the U.S. has had in being innovating in STEM fields is due to our cultural tradition of comprehensive education rooted in the liberal arts.
There is no evidence for this.
>A focus only on STEM is what gets you modern-day China, Korea, and Japan, where there are many technically skilled workers but a lower inclination to be innovative.
More stereotyping with no evidence. As someone who was worked with many Chinese, Koreans and Japanese as a scientist this statement is just outright ridiculous. Guess what, many of the top creative scientists in America are educated in the very countries you deride.
This is a very disappointing article. It's a regurgitation of cliches. "Education is about critical thinking and 'self enrichment'; Steve Jobs was a Prophet; Mark Zuckerberg is a Public Hero" -- how much was the author paid by Apple and Facebook, or is this what a "stupid sheep" looks like? The conflation of STEM with "Asian educational systems" is hackneyed; every person who does serious things in STEM knows that it's not just memorization. Speaking of which, why is it that people who aren't in STEM (the journalists and politicians) are so vocally worshipping it and "whining" about women and minorities being under-represented?
"No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write." Ironically the author has none of these skills, and the best thing for him to do would be to avoid the humanities and take several rigorous math courses -- maybe then he will learn how to define his terms and stop writing things that mean essentially nothing.
You are essentially attacking the person instead of his argument. But, the article never claimed STEM was about memorization. Perhaps you should re-read more carefully.
People like him should be "attacked", if you want to dilute the meaning of "attacked" to include non-violent criticisms of character. If he's going to litter his article with first person pronouns and make it personal, then he's "fair game."
I said the article conflated STEM with "Asian educational systems", which are conflated with memorization. Read:
>But technical chops are just one ingredient needed for innovation and economic success. America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an optimistic outlook. A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation.
>Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking. I went through that kind of system. It has its strengths, but it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity.
> to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way
To be honest, you are a prime example of the article's point. There is more to education than just STEM. The fact you failed to realize the person you were replying to used the word "attacked" correctly, for instance, can lead to a failure of communication. Failures of communication lead to things like this:
> Ironically the author has none of these skills, and the best thing for him to do would be to avoid the humanities and take several rigorous math courses -- maybe then he will learn how to define his terms and stop writing things that mean essentially nothing.
Yet another flaw in your style of argument that could have been corrected with classes in the humanities.
"Attack" has violent connotations; so does "harsh." There is more to language than prescriptive definitions. Have you heard of "meaning as use", Wittgenstein's "motto"? The first half of my college education was spent as a philosophy major, which I think was useless, both personally and economically.
Please don't call me arrogant. (However much you might dislike me I can assure you I dislike myself more.) I don't have any pretensions to being intelligent or having something worthwhile to say. What I wrote was a knee-jerk reaction to what I read, and I criticized his character because the idea of his existing as a person "made me angry", and because I could not fully articulate my problems with the content. Maybe someone else will be able to do that. Part of it is that I spent a portion of my life believing in things like "self enrichment through education" or "being a well rounded person" -- the general sentiments expressed in the article -- but now I think they're meaningless. I learned Homeric Greek and read parts of the Odyssey in it, but the idea of an engineer going home after a day of work and reading the Odyssey in Greek and thinking to himself, "boy, this really makes me think; I am a well-rounded person. Maybe tomorrow I will start Gravity's Rainbow" strikes me as ridiculous and makes me laugh, again for a reason I can't fully articulate, probably because I once had thoughts like that and I no longer do.
There is nothing wrong with that last quote about his writing style. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness. My experience with the humanities has taught me to reject most writing. In fact I have "unlearned" most of my writing style and now try to be as honest as possible. Many people assume I am uneducated, so I guess it's worked.
> "Attack" has violent connotations; so does "harsh." There is more to language than prescriptive definitions.
He communicated clearly and you are simply being picky because you believe restricting the word to its more violent connotations is "superior".
The belief that a person is "wrong" because they do not meet your subjective expectation is a conceit. Sorry, you can't simply expect the rest of the world to bow to your subjective expectations.
> (However much you might dislike me I can assure you I dislike myself more.)
I don't dislike you or have any opinion of you beyond the assumption you don't seem to realize how you come across and that word relayed that message. The fact you would complain about a person's diction when they are literally correct is precisely in line with that behavior.
> There is nothing wrong with that last quote about his writing style. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness. My experience with the humanities has taught me to reject most writing. In fact I have "unlearned" most of my writing style and now try to be as honest as possible. Many people assume I am uneducated, so I guess it's worked.
> Consider the same pattern in two other highly innovative countries, Sweden and Israel. Israel ranks first in the world in venture-capital investments as a percentage of GDP; the United States ranks second, and Sweden is sixth, ahead of Great Britain and Germany. These nations do well by most measures of innovation, such as research and development spending and the number of high-tech companies as a share of all public companies. Yet all three countries fare surprisingly poorly in the OECD test rankings. Sweden and Israel performed even worse than the United States on the 2012 assessment, landing overall at 28th and 29th, respectively, among the 34 most-developed economies.
That is pretty direct.
I'm dropping this mainly because at this point I am leaning towards this being another troll account, honestly.
I agree with everything you said, but I found most disturbing in the article was: "You can make a sneaker equally well in many parts of the world, but you can’t sell it for $300 unless you’ve built a story around it."
So when Beats®, Monster Cable® and Bose® trick the weak-minded into overpaying for commodity products, that is a good thing?
"The value added is in the brand — how it is imagined, presented, sold and sustained" Gee, we used to call that the "rip-off"
53% don't believe in climate change (2) 15% don't think vaccination is safe.
Then I don't think you don't hace a problem of obsession with STEM, bit with The lack of It. 1 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolutio... (2)http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-...