Does STEMfaggotry go deeper than academic indoctrination? Does it correlate with lower levels of self-awareness?

If it's physical, then its not subjective

That's because you don't get it you nit

That is the point, science never claimed to answer why questions.

If your a materialist, then there is of course no why, separate from the mechanism which allow you to have qualia, and the forces that brought them about.

Pretty sure my "I" is subjective m8

But there's no "why question" to be had about nature.

Being unaware of the bullshit your teacher made up because they were of a social standing where education was an expectation but lacked the skills required to achieve anything useful isn't exactly a negative.
Who gives a fuck and why?

Not sure what you mean or what side your even on.

"Why" can only apply to motivations in an agent. You can't ask, "Why do the tides go in and out?". But you can ask, "How do the tides go in and out?", which science can answer.

No, it doesn't. Why is asking for the cause or reason of something. "Why is there consciousness?" can be answered, with a God's eye view anyways, by "because reality is of such a nature x that consciousness can easily be derived from properties y"

So how is that any different from how?

Because the how is an inter-systemic how, simply a description of the physical conditions in which it arises, not an accounting of perception metaphysically, outside the box, as it were.

you can't even tell me what matter is, so "consciousness is based in the brain" while true, doesn't tell me shit about what it's doing there in the first place.

>And of course the new atheism movement. No joke people like Krauss and Tyson have done a lot to popularize this weird dichotomy and since the community as a whole already worships 'Science and Reason' they're all too eager to throw out anything that isn't approved by the horseman. Even Dennett seems to love phrasing philosophical problems in the most reductionist and sterile way possible.

This is true, some in the science camp have unjustifiably attacked the humanities (and social sciences). However, the humanities started to become incoherent sometime during the 1960s, with postmodernism, critique, theory and any number of highly abstract ideas such that the curriculum became divorced from reality. There was no general set of knowledge or skills that people were emerging with, a lot of it became too specialized.

Roughly the same thing happened in the social sciences, with the fall of behaviorism in psychology and the specter of Nazism hanging over attempts to quantify human behavior, as it became apparent there could be bias or it could be used for political purposes.

It became easy for science to intrude on the humanities when they were in the sorry state they were in a decade ago (and to some extent are still in).

A good book on this topic of the science-humanities divide is The Two Cultures by CP Snow, from the late 50s.

Maybe it's because I didn't go to college (got a decent job and a lot of my coworkers are paying off 30-50k in debt, seems unattractive) but as an outsider I don't see how the humanities and STEM fields can't be considered equally important. There is very obviously a need for both.

I'm a genetics major with a minor in philosophy. You're making sweeping generalizations.

It's a matter of perspective, and a matter of not knowing what you have until it is lost.

It's obvious that STEM is more useful in terms of growing the economy, and furthering technological development, but if nobody educates themselves in Classical philology, that knowledge will be lost, and all the history with it.

Countries like Japan are now even closing down their Humanities departments, which I personally think is sad.

That's why I specifically said "STEMfaggotry".

Most of the humanities and social sciences went of the rails.
> When pygmies cast such long shadows, it must be very late in the day.

>By what means?
>For what purpose?
To ask "how?" is to ask about causation; to ask "why?" is to ask about teleology.

What about pure mathematics? Isn't this right across the border from the philosophy of propositional logic? And what of emphasis in the sciences on parsimony? And what of thinkers like Hume and Popper?

>Countries like Japan are now even closing down their Humanities departments, which I personally think is sad.
That's more a symptom than a cause. Japan is sort of imploding internally population-wise as they slowly decrease to a domestically-sustainable equilibrium population (they just need the old people hanger-ons to die off and stop being a net economic drain); there's just the need for a lot of downsizing in that nation for a lot of things, not just a subset of academia. It just doesn't have the population to sustain a lot of it at the levels they're currently at.

This is still better than using Europe's idea of trying to fight the tide of low birth rates and subsequent labor shortages through immigration though; Europe's geography can't handle the intake the way Japan and the US can (one is a homogeneous nation that's difficult to get to, even harder to naturalize into, and the other is surrounded by nations of relative stability and the world's strongest economy to float social troubles at large).

>This is still better than using Europe's idea of trying to fight the tide of low birth rates and subsequent labor shortages through immigration though

No it isn't, if all the immigrants that came to Europe were as educated as Europeans themselves.

The problem isn't immigration, the problem is importing millions of borderline illiterate farmers with a 10th century view in their religion, to an advanced technocratic society that has a need for skilled labor.

Immigrants in general won't ever be skilled/educated; by nature, if they had those skills to begin with, they'd generally be more stable enough to stay in their home nations and eke out a job, even if it was as shitty right now as Syria and it's civil war.
It's those that don't even have those skills that in general come of their own power to immigrate on the whole.

>they'd generally be more stable enough to stay in their home nations and eke out a job

But why would they, if they are educated enough so they can emigrate to another country and make 6 figures, instead of 4 in their home country?

You are aware of the concept of a brain drain right?

Yes, but they wouldn't come in enough numbers to fulfill a labor shortage realistically. As well, there is the manifold issue of "risk" for immigrants of any sort.
The unskilled/uneducated immigrants can come more easily because they have comparatively less to lose (more or less their lives being all they've got left with only up to go from there unless they're enslaved along the way).
Skilled immigrants have to compete in the open job market with skilled citizenry of the host nation, which is pretty goddamn difficult with the language barrier alone and familiarization with basic social/business protocols of that nation. As well, in certain cases, they are actually more competitive staying in their own nations (such as a lot of IT being outsourced to Indians in India because it's cheaper and on paper them being qualified to fill such positions, even if they don't fit the quality desired by consumers for service).

So explain why 25% of all physicians in the U.S are foreign-born.

>if they are educated enough so they can emigrate to another country and make 6 figures, instead of 4 in their home country?
Unless you know of a magical nation that has high-demand for 6-figure jobs that apparently they have so low a population that they can't fill it domestically, an immigrant (unless they're top-tier internationally recognized for their skill) would face a huge uphill battle in trying to get that same position.

Those jobs aren't exactly falling out of the sky, even in the Nordic socialist paradise stereotypes.

Sometimes the job in hand is pretty damn good for what you can realistically expect unless you like gambling with your future.

Am I the only Stemnigger who seemingly dodged all indoctrination?
Im reading Descartes right now as I shitpost and Im genuinely confused.
Im also a devout catholic. So where does this "stem is bad at humanities" come from?

Im not bitching Im genuinely curious

Being medical myself once, that's actually right up my (admittedly individual-point-of-view grassroots-level) alley to answer.
It's simply easier (a fucking ton easier) to become a doctor outside the US. It's hell and a half for even straight-A students to enter either MD or DO school in the US due to the overwhelming applicant pool and lack of spots.
Conversely overseas schools and programs are vaguely more easily filled (though of course in many nations, still super difficult). Cuba would be a place where it's easier per se (a fucking ton of doctors per capita, just not a lot of resources for proper medical care). France would be a place where it's actually goddamn hard (though this isn't by personal experience and more by academia hearsay about their ecole system).
The bottleneck for medicine in particular is in MEDICAL TRAINING.
Once you get your MD (or equivalent), you're free to practice in the US after completing a US residency and passing specialty license boards (which is the true place that people actually learn how to be a doctor, as medical education is mostly on getting certified to practice at all).
Thus, we have such a high foreign fulfillment of medicine and primary care simply because we can't crank out enough of our own people fast enough DESPITE a willing population, but if we COULD we'd close it up in a heartbeat.

Well I think it's because it's vastly easier to invite people who are already done with school and are MDs, than wait for braindead NEETs to get their finger out of their ass to go to medical school.

It's not rocket science m8.

I see this. I live in Florida, and I see a lot of people go to medical school in the Bahamas because school is a lot easier there

from what I have heard US medical schools are less interested in turning out doctors than maintaining an elite status. They have no interest in turning out the number of doctors the market demands

>than wait for braindead NEETs to get their finger out of their ass to go to medical school.
There are more than enough qualified people to fulfill domestic primary care, you silly sausage.
Again, the issue is that we don't have enough spots for them. That's WHY it's easier to get "skilled/educated immigrants," but that also doesn't solve that immigrants in general are of the unskilled and uneducated type for raw labor.
By your logic (or perhaps you're being contrarian for the sake of conversation) we should have even more high-demand, high-pay industries filled by skilled foreigners because they're all waiting at the gates rather than actually being of fair stability in their own nations.
Now I'm plain confused because we're arguing in circles because we're both right but we place differing emphasis on what's going on.

Either way, this seems like a complete derailment from your claim that only uneducated plebs emigrate from their own country.

>we should have even more high-demand, high-pay industries filled by skilled foreigners because they're all waiting at the gates

The question isn't what we should do, the question is what really happens.

You made a claim that only uneducated people emigrate from their country, which isn't true at all, as the 25% physicians in America illustrate.

>less interested in turning out doctors than maintaining an elite status. They have no interest in turning out the number of doctors the market demands
That's actually something of a misinterpretation (though not entirely false).
They need that elite status to attract students for application, which is a fair amount of revenue but what they're REALLY after from that is the opportunity to snatch up and train the cream of the crop of the applicant pool.
They will fight TOOTH AND FUCKING NAIL for the brightest stars in the pool, as they hope they'll be valuable networking nodes after they're trained and successful in the future.
After that, there's the issue that basic medical training in the US is a fucking bear.
I don't blame schools for not opening up more spots to meet demand, because it's fucking expensive both in terms of sheer money, but in time and effort invested per student (and not all of them can hack the medical workload of studying, so if you let that one kid in and they drop out, you just lost a spot investment that could have been filled by someone else who COULD have succeeded), on top of patient liability.
Hell it continues on to US residency programs; the government has to PAY programs to take on students because they're such a liability. I believe students are paid for not only in residency salary but also a lot of their behind-the-door-administrative-costs/insurances through about three times that in Medicare money.
Medicine, despite the money it makes, on the ground/trenches-level, is a giant fucking liability which raises costs for providers/service-members and those that train them.

>You made a claim that only uneducated people emigrate from their country,
I didn't say that at all. I said that the bulk majority of immigrants are going to be unskilled/uneducated.

>Immigrants IN GENERAL won't ever be skilled/educated; by nature, if they had those skills to begin with, they'd generally be more stable enough to stay in their home nations and eke out a job, even if it was as shitty right now as Syria and it's civil war.
>It's those that don't even have those skills that in general come of their own power to immigrate ON THE WHOLE.

>I said that the bulk majority of immigrants are going to be unskilled/uneducated.

Fair enough, but the reason that is the case is because they come from places where people in general are uneducated.

There is a reason nobody is whining about their neighborhood full of Swiss people in Europe.

>There is a reason nobody is whining about their neighborhood full of Swiss people in Europe.
Because the Swiss are educated and stable enough to stay at home, man. If they had an economic downturn (lol, in Switzerland with all their Nazi golds?) on the scale of the Irish Potato Famine, it's not going to be largely the skilled and educated (and most likely already employed by population) that decide to risk it all and go to a new nation.
It's going to be mostly those who aren't skilled, even if educated who NEED to risk dropping their "homes" for simple survival.
People largely immigrate en masse due to duress, not profit.

>There is a reason nobody is whining about their neighborhood full of Swiss people in Europe.
Because the Swiss ain't living in a warzone? That's sort of the deciding factor.

I bet plenty of Moroccans or Thai people or whatever aren't getting complained about because they never left their homelands regardless of how educated they were and thus aren't forming neighborhood ethnic-towns.

>There is a reason nobody is whining about their neighborhood full of Swiss people in Europe.
Nobody's whining about the swiss because the fuckers don't leave their home. They don't need to immigrate.

The point I'm trying to make, is that mass immigration from the Middle-East into Western countries, is what causes problems in Europe.

Problems that wouldn't exist if you invited Polish people, or Americans, or Spaniards.

>that wouldn't exist if you invited Polish people, or Americans, or Spaniards.
lolwut
The Bongs complain about the Polish all the time. They don't cause as many issues but they certainly don't consider them "their own."
The Spaniards don't move out of Spain for all their issues, like the Greeks. They're waiting for their socialist gravy train to crash in the flames of austerity measures and bankruptcy due to poor management.
And Americans are complained about culturally but in general they're not staying in any amount to make a neighborhood in any nation, even in Canada.

>Problems that wouldn't exist if you invited Polish people, or Americans, or Spaniards.
The later two wouldn't even come.

The Poles already do and they're treated like Mexicans in the US depending on the nation (usually the UK, France, and Germany).

Tolerated and passive-aggressively hated as a semi-underclass that people know they need for labor.

Arabs are just the lightning rods because they're the most diametrically different and coming at the same time in even larger numbers.

Sure, but that's hardly comparable to the problems that comes with inviting borderline illiterate farmers from the Middle-East.

It kind of annoys me that I have to repeat that, as if you didn't hear me the first time.

>implying there is a hard problem
>implying it's not baggage from outdated criteria and philosophical history
>not realizing that intentionality is just as hard to explain as qualia
>still missing wittgenstein's point

Because you're seemingly ignoring the fact that mass immigration of any foreign culture causes issues, emphasis on MASS.
That and you seem to enjoy mincing the details for the sake of it.
Immigration of any large uneducated force is going to cause issues and in general a large immigration is going to be mostly uneducated and unskilled.
Subsequently there WOULD be LESS issues if they were educated and skilled but that's a pipe dream because there generally wouldn't be a mass immigration if they were; their home nations would be more stable or at least their individual lives would be.
Don't concentrate so much on the little details that won't happen realistically. The middle-easterners are a temporary thing, even if they'll be largely a point of contention within our individual livespans.

>because they're the most diametrically different

And yet the West invites them anyway, which is a kind of self-flagellating masochism that the Arabs themselves would never lend us if we ever had to flee to their countries.

Well the details matter, because it's about class.

Nobody cares about Rashid Ibn Walid who speaks the language of his host country perfectly, and has a net worth of 50 million dollars, but everyone cares about the uneducated masses that are prone to violence, mass rape and crime in general, all the while feeding on the welfare system.

Apples to oranges; don't turn this into a /pol/ discussion.

The Arabs wouldn't help because they live in largely poverty and subsequent hatred of the "opulent" West.

It'd be like running from a house fire into Hell in that scenario.

And the West isn't necessarily inviting them.

The Euros just want menial labor they can exploit and are willing to gamble they can naturalize fast enough to keep their economy afloat for better or worse.

You sound like you believe it's because anybody in the West wants more Arabs for the sake of Arabs.

The Diversity movement is just a boogeyman for larger economic concerns and attempts to placate the immigrant population as a whole into faster naturalization rather than open glass cieling discrimination.

And thus we come full circle.
Did you just want to rail on muzzie immigrants in Europe?
I mean, I thought we were discussing the social paradigms that comprise mass immigration movements and their effects.
Instead it seems you just want to make the point that you don't like the ME people (of which very few people at all on earth would say they'd honestly want them if they weren't in trouble).
I thought you were cool, if anal.
Now I know that you just wanted to vent about your pet peeves.

No, I'm trying to give you a description of what happens.

My original post to you was about how large-scale uneducated immigration causes problems because they are almost invariably delegated to the lowest rungs and class of society, by nature of their ignorance.

This in turn makes people think they are justified in hating them, because when they see a swarthy person walking down the street, he is after all statistically more likely to be less educated and poorer.

Now, I don't want that situation to occur at all, which is why I am against the trends of mass immigration. Unlike the idealistic leftist with his head in the sand like an ostrich, I don't think I'm helping anyone, by bringing them to a place where they will almost to a certainty be treated worse off than the native population, simply by the nature of the hyper-advanced capitalist society we live in.

you're*
for the love of christ

That's interesting because I've meet countless stemfags who boast about their pursuit in their degree. While bashing anyone in the humanities as wasting their time, truthfully stem isn't for everyone and shouldn't be imo

Are you in maths? That would explain it. Pure mathematicians tend to be theists and think about philosophy all day from my experience.

Does anyone have a good book, article, site, etc. that combines heavy math with philosophical/esoteric shit?

Materialism is taking over every aspect of society and we are abandoning humanites because we are becoming less human.

Why is consciousness a hard problem? We haven't even defined it yet. Studies in animals show there are various levels of consciousness, with humans seemingly having the highest. We don't know any extraterrestrial consciousnesses. and we are far away from creating something like it ourselves.

ITT BUTTMAD UNEMPLOYABLE CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHERS WATCHING THE HUMANITIES DIE