So, Veeky Forums, I know this debate is kinda endless, but what field would you consider superior...

Oh, I see. You already knew the answer and wanted a bait thread.

Agreed. At this point it's a question of aesthetics the individual prefers. Personally I find screw drivers to be more of use. This topic is tired and boring.

It's simple user. It's the difference between architecture and interior design. I'll leave it up to you to consider which approximation applies to what discipline.

Well, maybe it was badly written, what is more important based on it's contributions?

Or both are needed and do their duties in providing things in their own ways.
/thread

True but you can't /thread your own posts, DB.

I'll just admit that I intuitively find STEM geniuses a lot less interesting than humanities geniuses.

Reading someone like Dilthey is like entering an enchanted fucking forest. You just know his whole life has been an effort to combine his continuously developing and intertwined moral, spiritual, and methodological principles, all into one holistic perspective on "Man." You may not agree with all of it, some of it may be derivative or stupid or whatever. But guys like him are often capable of saying something that not only completely restructures your view of a subject (like the role of technology in human life), but restructures the entire fields on which your views are possible. They not only give different answers to questions, they suggest alterations in the questions themselves, suggest new questions.

STEM guys by comparison, whenever I read them on anything outside their specialty, remind me of politicians. If you spend all your time studying social theory like an autist, anything an everyday politician says is going to sound boring as fuck to you, because you'll instantly see that it isn't nuanced enough to have any deep spiritual program or theoretical guiding principles. It's always mundane shit like
>IT'D BE GOOD IF.. MORE ROADS.. HAD LESS POTHOLES!

STEM dudes are similar in that they're always talking about dumbass garbage shit like
>MANKIND IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE GREATER.. REFRIGERATION! AND LESS FOOD WILL SPOIL. I WILL UNDERSTAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ATOMS, AND WE WILL MAKE A BETTER TECHNO-CHAIR, FOR YOU AND FOR ME.

Well, I mean, OK. Even Einstein and shit. "WAR IS BAD, I DON'T LIKE IT." Damn, insightful. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying it's nothing you couldn't get from journalistic moral writers.

Also, occasionally scientism is benign and progressive, but more and more often it's now downright worrying that STEMfags' categories of thought and projections of the future are so naive and rigid. Techno-chair innovations are like old whiggishness all over again, and it's a gigantic cult for Elon Musk fanboys to jerk off over on Reddit while the inner life of humanity dies unnoticed.

STEM guys seem to be really really good at one thing, which is respectable, but to me it makes listening to them on other matters a little bit like asking Johnny Depp for his advice on a political crisis because he was in that movie. It used to be that all scientists were also philosophers and cultural figures, but that went away with increased specialisation and bourgeoisification.

Just pick one and make the other self-study. People who only pick one side are brainlets who can't manage to grasp the importance of both sides. Those who pick the human sciences think themselves superior, because, they aren't smelly basement dwellers, or because, their field makes them more engaging at parties. While natural sciences consider themselves superior because they have a greater chance at employment, and because they assume that society only needs human calculators to function.

>You have to pick one B-B-BAKA!
I would rather kill myself than imagine only having one side. Only reading one type becomes boring after a while.

>An obsession with superiority betrays a mind deeply uneducated in the most fundamental sense

Nope. It's the exact opposite: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588

>"Second, the study suggests that this form of bias is not a consequence of overreliance on heuristic or intuitive forms of reasoning; on the contrary, subjects who scored highest in cognitive reflection were the most likely to display ideologically motivated cognition. These findings corroborated the hypotheses of a third theory, which identifies motivated cognition as a form of information processing that rationally promotes individuals’ interests in forming and maintaining beliefs that signify their loyalty to important affinity groups."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22663351

>"we found that none of these bias blind spots were attenuated by measures of cognitive sophistication such as cognitive ability or thinking dispositions related to bias. If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability."

Not that in both papers they aren't saying cognitive reflection and ability is synonymous with IQ or anything /pol/ tier. They are explicitly talking about reflective abilities from learned skills like reasoning and decision making that one would get from education.

This outlook seems exactly like what the history of academia looks like throughout its history whether its now with leftists, with pictures like in the OP, or with medieval scholastics: it's educated ivory tower wankers who can't help but signal just how awesome and better they are than everyone while being completely blind to why they are fuckwits.

not really sure what your point is here other than the obvious:
>STEM geniuses are insightful about STEM topics
>humanities geniuses are insightful about humanities topics

/thread

It bamboozles me that there is even a divide, you wouldn't have found this 100-200 years ago. Post-Kantians and early continental philosophers were engaging with psychology, logic, and science. Plenty of mathematicians and physicists in the late 19th century were also doing philosophical work. Now it is two camps who are basically both right at the same time in their outlooks. One that thinks STEM is full of social retards that lack broad depth to big questions, and the other that eschews any sort of useful formalisms or scientific results that can help at times with philosophical or humanities topics.

Fuck man I love this board sometimes.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein

"A writer will find that the more precisely, conscientiously, appropriately he expresses himself, the more obscure the literary result is thought, whereas a loose and irresponsible formulation is at once rewarded with a certain understanding. [...] Regard for the object, rather than for communication, is suspect in any expression: anything specific, not taken from pre-existent patterns, appears inconsiderate, a symptom of eccentricity, almost confusion. [...] The logic of the day, which makes so much of its clarity, has naively adopted this perverted notion of everyday speech. [...] Only what they do not need first to understand, they consider understandable. [...] Few things contribute so much to the demoralization of intellectuals. Those who would escape it must recognize the advocates of communicability as traitors to what they communicate." -Theodor Adorno

I find humanities geniuses more interesting as well, user.

I gave this some thought, and hammers are definitely superior.

If it is a sturdy screwdriver I can also use it as a shitty hammer, while I can't use a hammer as a shitty screwdriver. Screwdrivers can be considered better weapons as well since you can conceal them and they are lightweight. Join the screwdrivers user.

Einstein used too many buzzwords. Even in natural science, this doesn't hold true. If I would tell someone E=m(c)^2 is a mass-energy relation then I have told them nothing. All it says is that energy can be reordered to be the same as mass times the speed of light squared. It doesn't mean anything. Does this mean that when I eat 1 kg of chips, that I can absorb 9*10^16 joule of energy? No, it doesn't. I have to explain that this is only for an object at rest. When it moves it has more energy. Which is shown in the expanded equation. I have to explain how to use it, which requires me to explain that this function is technically useless unless applied to atomic and particle physics. How to convert the different units to my desired units when using the equation to calculate energies. And most importantly how I derived this equation in the first place, which can sometimes span many pages. And suddenly the simple explanation becomes as roundabout as any other.

Derivations aren't explanations, they are justifications. Explanations of meaning are also not scientific explanations. You are also equivocating on what you mean by "meaning". In fact, you haven't even set up any meaning postulates on what meaning means and seem to shift from explanation of meaning (what it means to some rando in a pragmatic sense), to scientific explanation (factors that explain some phenomenon, with some extra content about theoretical virtues of simplicity) in the quote you are responding to.

Natural Sciences and Human Science go hand in hand but people who aren't intelligent enough to do both typically stick to Human Science and call it a day.

they both have applications.
human sciences are seen as shit because it attracts pseuds who play the rhetoric game probably cos they were beaten up as a kid instead of genuinely wanting to discover things that can help humanity.

>discover things that can help humanity

this is why no one likes stem

stop "discovering" things you worthless retards, there are eight billion proles waiting for the neverending orgyporgy to begin, we need some time to sort out what to do with nuclear bombs for fuck's sake

can you read? i was referring to human sciences and i was saying it attracts pseuds not that human sciences isn't able to help humanity, which you apparently have something against cos you're too cool to care.

This. Very few people in hard science are dismissive of human sciences. Heck, even the engineering fedoras tend to grow out of it sooner or later. Yet I've met plenty of sociology/psychology PhD's and even a professor with this naive teenage understanding of science as a whole and 'muh higher cause' superiority complex.

Most of the pseuds go into liberal arts. The few strays that end up in STEM are not representative. Stop being a faggot.

I'M TALKING ABOUT LIBERAL ARTS ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED

Meant to quote the faggot you were quoting.

SORRY THEN

ALL RIGHT THEN

Yeah man, just imagine how better off we would have been without all those shitty inventions we had like paper, antibiotics or ink.

>A is good
>A is a member of B
>Therefore any and all members of B are good

thanks for this demonstration of why actually learning to think is a useful thing

Get a job pseud

go back to asking how to get hired by google on Veeky Forums and wondering whether you should switch to electrical engineering

remember my posts ten years from now when you're coming home every day to play the latest greatest video game after spending your days building the database backends for hookup apps so degenerates can suck each other's cocks in muskomatic johnnycabs

You seem butthurt.

>implying I go on Veeky Forums
Lel. Get a job tho.

this conversation is actually a good demonstration of what techno-capitalism does to human thought

>actual human invests unnecessary effort in doing a thing (i.e. writing insulting post)
>capitalism replies with factory-stamped infinitely reproducible modular content ("NH U R BAD")

the dialectic of our posts is a phenomenology of spirit's death in postmodernity

now you reply again with "HEHE MAD THO?" and i shoot myself in the brain and the story is complete

It's because colleges, particularly in America have devolved into glorified daycare centers. People are largely shunted into one pigeonhole or the other based on what they major in pretty much by design at this point.

Didn't even bother reading because I know it's some puerile pseud hipster garbage. Get a job faggot.

Philosophy should keep away from STEM as much as possible. The divide is false and unnatural and it only serves autists that screech on both sides of the spectrum. Don't fight with STEM over utility because you lose.

Define utility.

Mild kek

this conversation is actually a good demonstration of what humanities education does to stupid people like you fampai.

>STEM geniuses are insightful about STEM topics
But they lack the philosophical and human insight to truly appreciate it.
>humanities geniuses are insightful about humanities topics
They know how to be human, but their knowledge of the universe will be limited to pop-sci books and, in general, over-generalizations.

>tfw human lives are too short
>tfw Faust was right

"The worst kind of idiot is the one touched by philosophy."

> philosophical and human insight to truly appreciate it

Yeah man, I'm sure people shit on Ohm for being so lacking in poetry and imagination.

>STEM
>job-market defined term conflating formal sciences, natural sciences and engineering
>retards arguing as though STEM/humanities is a real dichotomy
When will this meme end.

>implying everyone in STEM is a genius
Most people in STEM are just normal dudes who will end up stuck in a shitty lab or in a middle school. People look at uni professors and go "oh, everyone in his field must be so well read, brilliant and insightful!"... nope, only the smart productive, driven ones are.
Most people in STEM never understand how mindblowing everything that is written on their textbook is. Their study is unexamined and dry.

That said, most old-school scientist you may mention, Ohm included, had a strong philosophical education, at least when compared to what is being offered in modern education.

t. chemist with a Ms in compchem

Mass access to higher education means there's bound to be a lot of mediocre people filling up the classrooms of unis, so there's no surprise.

>most old-school scientist you may mention, Ohm included, had a strong philosophical education
Well yes, but you also have to remember just how narrow fields have become nowadays. I don't know if my specialty even existed 50 years ago in most unis(Logistics, yes, it's pretty shit, but if the show fits...).

good asnwer

>STEM people are human calculators
>your brain on humanitardianism

liberal art students are the laughing stock of society

ahahah this place is so bizarre

bump!

Ebin au/lit/sm thread amirite my fellow not redditor?

>bumping on a slow board
kys retard

When it's dead it's dead.