Hacker News Reader

Comment by penjelly | Hacker News Reader

physics for example, teaches people how the world actually works... thermodynamics, electricity, light, all useful information for determining fact from fiction when they turn into adults.

I wasnt even good in these subjects and im still glad i was taught the ideas and can explore them more readily as an adult...

View on HN

"how the world actually works" is a bit of a misleading statement. a deep understanding of various concepts can take years or decades to develop, and the understanding you get from 1-2 years of general education can lead you to make false assumptions and assume you know more than you actually do and as a result dismiss the opinions of people who are actually informed.

I don't believe that an extra year or two of education on thermodynamics or electricity would make the vast majority of the population better in their everyday lives, and it might make things slightly worse in terms of experts' ability to push things forward. Do we really want all our neighbors bikeshedding utility grid management like amateurs crowding into a github pull request? We've seen how good the general population is at epidemic management lately.

I was personally deprived of basically any education until community college due to how education and parental "freedom" work in the US, and while the gaps in my education (STEM in particular) are regrettable, in practice they really have not interfered in my everyday life. I enjoyed learning about biology, physics etc and do some reading on my own time to this day but the stuff that I actually need to know about in my everyday life tends to be from the 'soft sciences' or non-sciences, like history or economics - despite the fact that I've been working as a programmer for over a decade.

Math is essential, though, no question there.

youre correct that it may not be enough time, but it gives them a foothold they can use later in life where the subjects might otherwise appear impregnable.

> Do we really want all our neighbors bikeshedding utility grid management

we already teach these subjects and i dont see this happening. I actually feel like bikeshedding would happen more if people only self educated on these topics, theyd have no baseline to compare to and anything they learned would "separate them from the pack" so to speak.

Your answer is "to deter to expert opinion" which already happens with our current system, except by not teaching it in schools we discourage people from learning it unless self taught. Which i think is a bad idea.

I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful?

If they're there to form part of a liberal arts education, to give young adults a broad experience in different fields alongside literature, art etc then great - I'm all for liberal arts education. But the parent set STEM aside as being especially and specifically important - which I disagree with. The only things that are especially and specifically important are those that will be useful in your life.

> I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful?

The last couple of years certainly highlight the problems caused when people aren't given, or don't pay any attention to, a certain level of education in biology...

The general understanding of scientific methods of enquiry/study/critique is also essential for modern life IMO, and sadly lacking in many very vocal and otherwise high profile people.

if you're talking about anti-vaxxers - that's not caused by lack of education. I don't know that much about viral transmission either, neither do you, or 99% or the people who are taking the vaccine, masking up and so on. The difference is primarily cultural - trusting versus not trusting the government & scientific advisors. All these anti-vaxx people haven't been failed by a lack of scientific education, they just don't trust the motives of the government - and that's not remedied by more alka seltzer volcanoes in school.

I disagree. I'd be willing to bet that the better educated a populous is, the higher the vaccination rates would be. I also believe that it's not a high bar to expect people to understand basic physics and biology and chemistry before being called an "adult". The info may not be immediately pragmatically useful, but people being less ignorant in general cannot be detrimental to society. How much can I trust someone that doesn't understand that feathers and rocks fall at the same speed, it's merely the air resistance that changes it? How many centuries back do we have to go before we consider something mandatory information?

so, liberal arts > STEM in your eyes?

I see it the opposite..

that's not what liberal arts education means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

but no, I weigh them comparably, depending on the specific "arts" you mean. Maths > painting, but philosophy > chemistry.

> thats not what liberal arts education mean

i didnt provide a definition for liberal arts.

also your own link is contradictory to your earlier comments...

> Academic areas that are associated with the term liberal arts include:

Life sciences (biology, ecology, neuroscience) Physical science (physics, astronomy, chemistry, physical geography) Logic, mathematics, statistics, computer science Philosophy History Social science (anthropology, economics, human geography, linguistics, political science, jurisprudence, psychology, and sociology) Creative arts (fine arts, music, performing arts, literature)

this states that philosophy and biology are both liberal arts. Along with physics and other STEM topics. Linking this implies you agree that STEM is important, as much so as Philosophy, which i agree is an important topic along with all those in this link.

I think general education is useful, yes - but I was responding to a comment that was hyping up STEM as especially important. Aside from maths, I don't think that's correct.

Your examples seem to all be contradictory though. It seems you have your own barometer for value that doesn't line up with your arguments.

my barometer is pretty simple, and calling them contradictory doesn't make them so:

- general education is useful

- pragmatic education is a step above general education, and should be prioritised

- maths is pragmatic, most STEM is not

that's really all there is to it.

If you're judging value by pay, math and chemistry and (and pretty much anything STEM) will kick philosophy's ass. If you're judging value by abstract value, haven't we left the territory of your argument? Aren't you saying we should only give people pragmatic skills and go light on the other stuff?

It's not that these aren't interesting subjects or potentially useful in adult life. They just shouldn't be the priority. Is it potentially useful in adult life to know how your car's IC engine works? Sure, but nowhere near as useful as knowing how to get a good rate on your car loan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com