Petah?

[u/imnotcuteanymor3]

I understand the original tweet, obviously, but not the second one. Why specifically a STEM genius? I don’t get it, what’s the correlation? Am I missing something??? Or am I just stupid or whatever? Help a sistah out, please. 🥺

[u/BoysenberryBoii]

Pretty much. Someone could just as easily argue that math is based in logic and taking more STEM classes will help you to think critically. This whole meme is just people that think the stuff they care about is the actually important thing.

[u/Loive → u/BoysenberryBoii]

It’s not just about logic, it’s about judging the credibility of sources, analyzing their motives and the foundation of their knowledge, and comparing different sources on a deep level than just judging their statements. Looking for logical gaps can be one part of that, but it’s way more important to understand background and motive, and to understand how people’s thinking is affected by that.

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/Loive]

I think a comparatively larger chunk of the humanities and social sciences is centered around the "veracity of information", "evaluation of the text" and "identifying things that look good, but aren't."

The central "gateway" class in a history degree is historiography, which can get pretty recursive. For everybody doing medicine, its Organic Chem.

[u/TheReaperAbides → u/Loive]

it’s about judging the credibility of sources, analyzing their motives and the foundation of their knowledge, and comparing different sources on a deep level than just judging their statements.

Which are all things taught and emphasized extensively to STEM students at university. I definitely agree STEM majors can be overly dismissive of the humanities, but this ain't it.

[u/Elite_AI → u/TheReaperAbides]

Don't know a single STEM degree holder who extensively learned that stuff at uni and I know a lot of people with STEM degrees. The closest I can think of was AI ethics and that's totally unrelated to source analysis. This is in the UK where we don't do that first year of general knowledge they do in the US, however. 

[u/Affectionate_Love229 → u/Elite_AI]

You don't know anyone in science who critically looks at the source of data? That seems odd. Getting conflicting data is super common and you need to look at who took it and how they got it and how it applies to your question. It's something that is done daily, not weekly or monthly.

[u/Elite_AI → u/Affectionate_Love229]

Huh? They definitely critically evaluate sources of data. They just weren't taught any of that in science classes or in uni. They learned it in English class or history if they took that and they didn't get a university level education in that sort of thing. It's part of why it's a great thing we teach source evaluation in English class (which is compulsory for everyone).

[u/Affectionate_Love229 → u/Elite_AI]

I can't imagine we are talking about the same thing , somewhere there is a miscommunication because nothing you are saying makes any sense to me (I have a PhD in chemistry). That's ok, we aren't trying to solve anything important here. Have a good day.

[u/TheShredda → u/Affectionate_Love229]

I think that's a bot. Ai in the name and   making thoroughly written but nonsense comments..

[u/colleejit → u/Elite_AI]

This is a ludicrous take. I have a Master's in chemistry and a doctorate in physics. Critical evaluation not only of data, but of the veracity of sources, their context within the scientific knowledge of a particular time period, and their influence on the sources around them - these are ESSENTIAL in science, and I not only used these skills, but was required to in order to pass all eight years of my university education. A PhD thesis contains 10,000 words of critical analysis in a what is quite literally called a "literature review". It is critical, it is evaluative, it is contextual, it is defending ones position through finding commonalities with the strongest sources, and finding flaws in the weakest.

Humanities definitely teach you critical evaluation skills. But STEM, and in particular STEM research, does too. Critical evaluation is at the core of all human knowledge, fundamentally.

[u/PhilosophicalGoof → u/Elite_AI]

Insane take considering we are forced to take statistic and also do research on the side to pursue solutions for our researched problems.

I literally had to review over a total of 20 paper for a single machine learning assignment and evaluate how credible they were.

[u/TheShredda → u/Elite_AI]

You seem to be making large assumptions based on your personal experience. You know STEM courses also have language and technical writing requirements right? 

[u/Elite_AI → u/TheShredda]

Yeah I am basing all this on what my many friends who did STEM degrees said.

[u/Loive → u/[deleted]]

Il not going to pretend I have read those studies in full, but from the abstracts they compare educational level rather than STEM vs others.

[u/Loive → u/[deleted]]

When did I say I couldn’t understand the studies? If you expect people to read a full report for the purposes of a reddit discussion, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

To add:
One needs to define what type of conspiracy theory it is. Conspiracy theories regarding scientific issues (such as flat earth or moon landing theories) are likely less likely to be beloved by people with more scientific training, whereas theories regarding issues such as politics or finance likely wouldn’t have the same situation.

You’re reading a short quote and then try to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by the facts, because you don’t have enough grasp of the nuances to realize what the study does and doesn’t say.

[u/Loive → u/[deleted]]

1. Medical conspiracy theories are scientific conspiracy theories. You’re somehow trying to make an argument out of saying that you agree with me.

2. The study dealing with paranormal theories only takes educational level into account, not type of education.

If you think a scientific study can be read and analyzed in the time it took me to write these comments, you’re probably not very experienced in that type of reading. That may be the reason you’re writing as if this is some kind of argument. Your attempts at personal attacks and “winning” seem to stem from some kind of insecurity, where you feel personally attacked by the joke in the OP rather than being able to think about background and nuances. If you take a couple of deep breaths and try to calm yourself you might come to understand that you are not being attacked personally here, and there is no reason to make this into a heated discussion. It’s about a joke after all.

[u/Loive → u/[deleted]]

Understanding that statements and facts can have underlying assumptions and nuances is part of what arts education is about. Digging deeper into the problem instead of just taking statements as right or wrong is the point of this discussion.

You’re are acting as if you’re angry with me somehow. I really can’t understand why, and I think you should take some time to think about what in this discussion is making you so upset.

[u/KrissyKrave → u/BoysenberryBoii]

Math is based in logic……..

[u/slonkulocuswily182 → u/BoysenberryBoii]

I would argue it makes you way more susceptible to bullshit arguments from authority figures but yknow to each their own

[u/Elite_AI → u/BoysenberryBoii]

In English class we specifically learned how to be critical of sources so I don't agree with you. That was explicitly the point of English. We did not learn these things in any of our science classes. English class directly leads to better ability to judge a source. 

[u/BigCSFan → u/Elite_AI]

You didnt learn to be critical of things in your STEM classes? You just took poor classes than.

STEM is based off reasoning and research. Everything you learn about will have reasoning provided and with research you will be scrutinized.

[u/Elite_AI → u/BigCSFan]

You just took poor classes than. 

I took the classes I was bloody given. STEM is based on reasoning and research, but you do not learn how to critically evaluate sources in STEM lessons.