What is the most Veeky Forums STEM subject?

why insist on being superficial?

philosophy

There's nothing superficial about it, Analytic Philosophy was devised at its roots as an attempt to give Philosophy the same methodological rigidity as natural sciences

Whatever requires the most intellectual effort and has the least practical use. Probably mathematics

>Whatever requires the most intellectual effort and has the least practical use
so theoretical physics and evolutionary biology?

...

>Theoretical physics
>high effort

lol

>evolutionary biology
>not useful

Yes but I dont see how that means analytic philosophers want to BE in a STEM field. If you remember, Russell wanted to remove the obscurity of philosophy propagated by Idealists like Bradley so he used tools from Frege and Math to do so. It seems like you're confusing methodology with content. Besides there have been many philosophers who have made contributions to mathematics and many mathematicians who have made contributions to philosophy.

So basically you agree, ok

this is your brain on STEM

Veeky Forums, I'm a civil engineer specialized in continuum mechanics and finite elements.
How bad is it?
A-Am I still allowed to post here.

Enjoy slaving away your life

Dude we all got to make a living.

t. Fat neet

Medicine

>Dude we all got to make a living.

EL OH EL

no you dont

do whatever you want, as long as you havent fallen for the family/mcmansion meme youll be fine.

Music ;)

What if I want a house so I can have a cat and listen to music without disturbing the neighbors?

entomology and non-euclidean geometry

then youve been memed and there's no saving you. now major in chemical engineering and secure that internship at exxon .

What is the most Veeky Forums field of engineering?

A-asking for a friend.

>fat NEET
The only one who will be fat is the wagie who spends his entire day on a comfy chair or couch

Absolutely none of them.

philosophy

Industrial would be my guess

Engineers are soulless wage slaves, so you will rarely find guys interested on literature.

electrical or structural. anything with bridges

Engineers are normies
CS people are bugmen
do a natural science or math

;-;

;-;

D-Dostoevsky was an engineer

I was considering either civil or electrical- we technically don't have to make up our minds until the end of first year. Fortunately my university is autistic enough to make us do a second major and "broadening units" outside our main course, which means I can also study a Veeky Forums subject whilst still maintaining the safety net of something that will actually get me a job at the end of it.

>Engineers are normies
Agree
>CS people are bugmen
Agree
>Do a natural science
Natural sciences are a filler degree, nearly on the same level as social sciences- the exception being medicine of course, if you count that.
>math
Maybe.

I wish it was 30+ years ago so I could just be a lawyer and be both Veeky Forums and not impoverished.

Math I think
Physics is just applied mathematics with fancy names.

there's a lot more existential answers at stake regarding math. Like incompleteness, platonism, beginning of the universe, and mo

dosto was a fagboy too

>Like incompleteness, platonism, beginning of the universe, and mo
How do numbers explain these
Proofs are boring compared to the pretty pictures in my head when reading moby dick

Medicine

And analythical philosophy and psychology fall both in the liberal arts box, or at least they're nowhere near STEM.

>D-Dostoevsky was an engineer
so was Wittgenstein lol

Medicine Is a totally different ball game, for most people studying it, it is primarily a vocational course, comparable to learning a trade.

nice digits. I thought you were wrong, but your digit guarantee truth

no one checks em on here

nah, math doesn't answer any existential questions. It just has some axioms you accept from the very beginning and everything else just follows logically from that.

t. pure math major

You're welcome

Electrical Engineering.
>tfw polymath understanding of mathematics, engineering, computer science, technology, and physics

Name one thing the field of dicksucking the ghosts of Lamarck and Darwin has done for anyone.

Bullshit, math has the capabilities of proving various sorts of philosophical problems and even determining certain concepts enhancing monotheism.

t. someone reading Nicomachus

Do people actually think psychology is a stem field hahaha

aaaaannyyyywayyyy.

The answer to OP's question is one of these two

- Economics
- Pure math

Economics is extremely literature intensive.

And pure math has profound impacts on philosophy and logic.

Do you think any branches of biology are useful? Maybe medicine, or agricultural science? Evolutionary biology underpins them all

Economics isn't STEM

Economics is definitely not STEM, and its ham-fisted attempts to explain human relations and value seem highly un-lit

>tfw engineer
>tfw want to go to grad school for philosophy
>tfw i wont get in

Bullshit. Just because you can fuck around with genetics doesn't prove anything about Darwin's asinine theories.

I'm on to you Darwinists, you seem to want to reinforce your bullshit field at no cost.

I will keep on eating my non-GMO foods because I don't want an inoperable brain tumor by the age of 30, thanks.

Fuck academia. Especially non-STEM shit. Liberal arts/humanities degrees are fucking worthless. The people that get them now don't even contribute to society or the economy.

Here's some advice for you morons:
Either go STEM or ditch college and learn a trade. And by go STEM I mean stick with Engineering or Computer Science mainly unless your a god tier genius at Math or some shit.

Otherwise you're wasting your time and money. Colleges should just be turned into pure vocational schooling anyway.

But as it stands right now, honestly, get a real degree. You want want a marketable education, not a political indoctrination. You can get the latter online easily enough.

I study physics and it can be Veeky Forums if you try but the truth is most of my classmates in all disciplines of stem are either autistic or videogame-and-funkopop-figure-obsessed redditors.
Physics and math are hands down the best disciplines for finding those seventy year old professors with wild white hair and worn out sweaters whose sanity or insanity you can't quite place, though. I like astrophysics and geophysics a lot but the most Veeky Forums field is non-linear dynamics, which is what my research is on. Shit's wild, pic related.

Please make sure you avoid doctors when you get sick, too

>Economics isn't STEM
>Veeky Forums has threads all the time on Economics

Listen fags, Economics is inherently a science in the way that Leon Walras treats it, and I don't think you could tell me any differently.

It's the best kind of science: the science of how we manage our food, and the means to obtain food. And also, many times economics does not even attempt to explain the human relations and concepts of value, only to observe them. Learn what you're talking about before you talk about things.

Where can I learn more about nonlinear dynamics? Sounds very interesting

I have and I will. The whole medical field is really corrupt and people go to the doctor far too often to justify how expensive their products are.

>learning a trade

So a lot similar as learning to write then.

It's also good to learn rigorously something about science and human psyche.

>no part of society or your life should serve any purpose other than making as much money as possible
I can think of no mindset I hate more than this horseshit.

>economics is the science of food
>learn what you're talking about before you talk about things

I also study physics but I find it extremely boring and unsatisfying. Help me. How do I change this?

Please tell me which major answers any existential questions?

anti-intellectuals plz go
What are you even doing on a literature board?

linguistics

That is literally what it boils down to.

Adam Smith literally valued things in corn, instead of monetary units. And he was not misguided to do so. Agriculture is the basis of what we know as economics.

It obviously gets more complex than that, but the best part about economics is that you can literally apply the findings to social relations that have existed previous to the economic findings themselves. I know of no other field like this, where you can apply calculus to exchange relations to determine how marginality governs the exchangeable value of commodities, and you can go back in time and use the charts that Adam Smith gave us and try to apply them to his charts on corn prices, and then gauge them against other goods. In other words, Adam Smith's personal system literally checked a day's work of labor or other things in the value of the corn produced from that day. In many ways, for Smith, corn was the monetary unit.

>Veeky Forums is the gate keeper of what is and isn't STEM
You only wan't economics to be a science because you have fetishised "science" as being the only legitimate way to produce knowledge. Have more confidence in the value of your field and its methods instead of being a pathetic STEM wannabe.

Not really. As I don't think that's the case at all. There are many fields of science that aren't even correct. Just read this thread.

I wouldn't be caught dead in an evolutionary biology classroom.

But I would PAY to go into a classroom discussing anything remotely related to Pythagoreanism or ancient arithmetic.

I can actually help you with that. How much of a background in math and physics do you have?
How far in are you? Why did you start? What interests you about other things?
What excited me the most is being able to take some phenomenon most people will never understand, break it down, and describe it almost perfectly, even predict how it will change later or apply it to other things. That's what classical mechanics is all about. I like relativity too, being able to see how space and time themselves can be manipulated by forces we can barely even comprehend.

Good economists will tell you that economics is not a science

It depends on how you're looking at it.

Walras is the only economist I can really think of who extensively obsesses over the definitions like this. I think, in my opinion, people obsess far too much over what IS and IS NOT science, because science is clearly not correct all the time.

But in regards to what Walras said, he asserted that economics was a science as long as it remained descriptive, and was an art as long as it was prescriptive. He understood what his field was composed of.

What Walras did was mathematically adapted economics. You CAN NOT. I repeat CAN NOT read his literature without a working understanding of calculus. It is most certainly a science at that level, trust me.

But don't worry, I see where you're coming from.

Computer. Can get literally any comfy computer related job because you have software and hardware knowledge, and can sit and learn Russian or read books at your desk 30 hours a week.

Heh, I guess you like Feynman. 2nd year. Classical mechanics, light, complex analysis and some coding. I got into it because I thought it'd be the next best thing to philosophy. (Also, I want to have a job in the future) Particle physics, quantum physics and relativity were just the coolest before I got into uni. Now it just seems like I'm constantly studying things that are just approximations used because they work well enough. I hope it'll at least get easier for me as the time passes.

Just the math and physics required for a non-math or physics STEM degree (so basically 1 year of physics, and a full calc sequence + linear algebra). Also some set theory. I know there's loads of physics I'm missing
that's needed to *truly* understand it, I'm just curious to learn more about it

t. austrian retard

Oh, to be in high school again.

i agree math doesnt answer existential questions but the axiom shit is completely wrong. Theres more to mathematics than just Peano axioms and the shit you can prove with them. Pretty sure its actually be proven that the Riemann hypothesis can't be proven with PA.

Anyway physics or math are the most Veeky Forums subjects. Einstein was pretty Veeky Forums although he may or may not have been a pseud fraud

My view is that science is a method, not a subject matter. So I definitely agree that science can be applied to the field of economics. The issue I see is many economists seem to believe their pet theories are ironclad and free of any political ideology when that's clearly not the case. Theories with an equivalent level of support in "true" STEM fields would be regarded as fringe.

And rightfully so, economics falls somewhere inbetween sociology and mathematics making arbitary predictions about the future.

I was just talking with some asian French guy in omegle about Economics (no surprise he is into mathematics, he is Asian AND French, lol) and he showed me some of his textbook, very heavy work on calculus. Extremely heavy mathematical stuff they do these days in economics.

But even HE said that Austrian economics made some valid points. I had to agree that capital injections into the country, no matter how beneficial the Keynesian Investment multiplier was for employment, it would devalue the monetary unit considerably.

In addition, Carl Menger, as opposed to Jevons who DID use mathematics, is the only economist who actually explained the concept of marginal utility very efficiently using ONLY arithmetical tables, and Walras commended him on this.

Although I agree with you, in order to appreciate the finer elements of economics, it IS always nice to appreciate SOME Austrian economists sometimes. After all, they actually do understand Neoclassicalists or Marginalists who utilize the calculus. They aren't using mathematics for a purely philosophical reason, and it's not completely invalid.

Of course, some fucking retard is going to run away with this idea and think to himself he doesn't need to learn calculus. No retard! You should just read Wikipedia because calculus is important for anything. But Leon Walras and Carl Menger did prove the concept of marginality could be proved with calculus or with only arithmetic, respectively.

>many economists seem to believe their pet theories are ironclad and free of any political ideology
It depends on what you're talking about. I have to concede there is a great deal of glossing over the sociological implications of some things in economics. For example, I find that frequently economists who focus on the mathematical elements too much lose sight of what their equations actually MEAN. But in the long run, I think there are economists who take a balance between understanding the theory AND the equations particularly well, like Keynes.

I wholeheartedly agree though, there is a sort of personal philosophy to economics, in that the system you describe is sometimes MEANT to prescribe things. Like Keynes system. And this is the flaw.

The best economists are the ones that lay the questions out on the table, the objective of the whole affair, much like good philosophers. And then they proceed to delineate the concepts through mathematical or empirical proofs.

A professor I have right now wrote an entire textbook on chaos and non-linear dynamics and put it all online against my university's wishes because he was angry that they told him to monetize it. He's one of the main theorists that turned it into a field in the first place. There are homework assignments you can test yourself with at whatever pace you want (all of them Python coding with an autograder) and a Piazza page you can join to ask him or others questions. It's a graduate class, so a lot of it will probably go over your head (half of it goes over mine), but there are some really interesting concepts in here.
chaosbook.org
I'm only a third year myself but the more I learn about it the more I realize almost all of it is composed of approximations to varying degrees of accuracy. I don't mind that, really - it just takes a shift in thinking from "these are the laws of all reality" to "this is how the human race makes sense of and explores reality." You're at the point that your courses explode out from general physics to a dozen subjects at once and you'll find some you like and some you don't. Good luck user.
And I've actually never read Feynman, but I know I should.

>. I had to agree that capital injections into the country, no matter how beneficial the Keynesian Investment multiplier was for employment, it would devalue the monetary unit considerably.
well duh

>In addition, Carl Menger, as opposed to Jevons who DID use mathematics, is the only economist who actually explained the concept of marginal utility very efficiently using ONLY arithmetical tables, and Walras commended him on this.
i thought austrians were against using empirical evidence not mathematics???

also that inflation is at odds unemployment is a really well-accepted idea

the existential part in about those axioms tho

t. pure math major as well

But there has never been any interesting literature written by mathematcians, that maybe because they so obsessively want to follow some rigorous patterns which inevitably must lead to some coherent conclusion.

Inb4 muh Gödel

Other way around. Whereas most Neoclassicists and Keynesian thinkers use equations and logic to explain concepts, Austrian economists use simple empirical evidence and logic. Their concept of exchange value, some of them, is based wholly on the HISTORICAL EXCHANGE VALUE. I'm NOT even kidding, it is kind of silly.

The best Austrian economist, the one you have to read in order to understand Keynes, is Carl Menger. He is the one whom everyone bases their writings on. Brilliant work, Principles of Economics, that.

>he hasn't read anything about Neo-Pythagoreanism

The mystical properties of numbers are still there, waiting for you user.

>Natural Sciences are a filler degree
>Physics and Bio are filler degrees

Which STEM course has the highest amount of Veeky Forumsfriends whom I can socialize with?
I'm scared of normies

Plenty of stemfags are Veeky Forums. I've met more engineering and math majors who are very well read. They are not assigned bullshit books, so they can read what they want after they finish up on their problems hw.

t. English lit major

tfw bugman
feels bad lads

Thank you, much appreciated! So cool that your prof was able to do that