Bad models of what science is do not further science. Science is an institution powered by people who have to undergo a lot of work to think differently than everybody else. If you think science is important you need to grasp that and its implications.
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein @happierer and
If everyone was, deep down inside, some kind of scientist, it wouldn't require funding or education or anything else. But everyone is not a scientist (as is plainly obvious). It takes immense work to think and act scientifically. And immense resources to sustain actual science.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This seems rather elitist to me. It also reminds me of the myth that learning math is more difficult than learning how to read. Children, as a whole, have much more potential than your argument seems to give them credit for. To me it’s about accessibility rather than platitudes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's not elitist to say that it takes hard work to get good at unintuitive, difficult things. That's the definition of education (and expertise). If you constrain education to the elite, then it's elitist.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @happierer and
It also does not have a whisper to say about the potential of children. Children have the potential to become scientists. If they are trained in how to think like scientists. It takes a lot of work. It is not natural at all. If it was, it wouldn't be so damned hard to accomplish!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @happierer and
(I guarantee you that my students — who are by an large STEM majors at the engineering school where I teach — would agree that being a scientist or engineer is not just about being creative or curious. It's about a LOT of hard work.)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I had a choice between a BFA and a BS degree. I excelled at both. I chose the BFA. Both require hard work to attain success and a degree in either does not guarantee that success. I have a BFA but earn my living as a Software Engineer. Go figure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @happierer @wellerstein and
I think it’s a mistake to pigeonhole people and silo STEM and the arts. My experience in both showed me what they have in common and what students in each could benefit from by exploring the other. STEM without exposure to liberal arts is dangerous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @happierer @wellerstein and
And art without exposure to somebody like Stephen J Gould, for example, leaves the artist with a narrower understanding of the fragility of our existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @happierer @wellerstein and
A huge problem w/ STEM right now is a lack of emphasis on liberal arts. Hubris & lack of ethics are already prevalent in science & tech at a time of rapid advancement. It’s only going to get worse w/ this current attitude that the arts are “lesser than” cerebrally & existentially
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I am really not sure where you're going with all this. I am not in any way privileging STEM. It takes work to be ANYTHING. Including but not limited to scientists. I am a historian of science. I teach STEM majors how to think humanistically and care about the big picture.
-
-
I haven’t gone anywhere with this that isn’t already widely known, and if it sounds new to you, well then, there you go.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.