That’s sort of my point. I am of the web developer tribe, and I am suggesting we are no better at this critical thinking stuff than any other group. We have tons of our own idiosyncrasies. Creating more of us isn’t the solution (just go make more of those computer people, they are pretty smart! - not exactly :p)

Man, let me introduce you to Roswell truthers, 911 conspiracy theorist, racists, cryptonazis, biblical biologists/geogrpahists, phrenologists, freudians, climate-change-is fake theorists, anti-vax activists, and flat earthers.

All of them have deniers, and that is the core function. When your core critical thought relies on denial of all evidence or outside data 'my falsehood is as good as your truth' then it isn't critical anymore.

But it looks like critical thinking. Often with an elaborate scientific pantomime built around it.

One of the hardest of modern things is separating the mimes from practicioners. You cannot have sufficient knowledge or reasoning in most domains, the language is tricky, and there are liars, unknowing mimes, and bad actors everywhere. And our brains are actively working against us much of the time.

That's lacking in critical thought. A denier isn't necessarily a denier because they contest common wisdom. They may easily be deniers simply because they have other authorities they adhere to more.

i have advanced degrees in mathematics and have interviewed for plenty of "STEM" jobs, so my take (pathetically wrong in your words) is from my direct experience. people do not value mathematics, whether they say they do or not. they want software engineers and data scientists already trained for what they're specifically working for. my mathematics experience has been completely marginalized because people do not value it and/or understand it. that's simply been reality.

> Maybe you might remember from your CS education (if you took one) how about 1/3rd of your coursework had to be outside of your major and you most likely had to take within your major some "Scientific Writing" or "Scientific Communication" classes.

this doesn't address anything that's at discussion here.

> The lack of profitability and job opportunities for humanities majors do a great job of that without some form of conspiracy against them...

so profitability is now the measure of whether a field is worthwhile or not? and i wasn't just talking about humanities fields. STEM marketing absolutely does affect the status quo, whether you think it does or not. we need people in those fields.

it doesn't matter what it literally stands for. (actually, it does matter but not in the way you think because it is a diversion really.)

there are more than enough math ph.d.s, and i can tell you that as a person who has advanced degrees in mathematics, interviewing for "STEM" jobs will generally get you nowhere without also having taught yourself computer science and programming (in the way that the company wants). most people do not care about the skill set, much less understand it. people just want software engineers and/or data scientists, and they do not want to train. people would generally rather hire a new grad who just came out of machine learning and algorithms courses than someone with advanced mathematics degrees (which creates a much higher ceiling that's ignored) and even experience.

so like i said, STEM is just a way to get more software engineers trained outside of companies before they hire them.