[HN Gopher] The Case Against "Stem"
___________________________________________________________________
The Case Against "Stem"
Author : martinlaz
Score : 36 points
Date : 2021-02-14 08:13 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thenewatlantis.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thenewatlantis.com)
| fortran77 wrote:
| And, in addition to blurring the line between Science and
| Technology, there's the "STEAM" movement which just makes
| everything a blurry mess.
| techbio wrote:
| The letters of the acronym "STEM" should be capitalized, as they
| are in the article title.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I think the fundamental reason that science and technology are so
| closely linked is because we really don't know what "truth" is.
|
| A scientific model is not "true" so much as it is "useful". In a
| sense, general and special relativity really did not become
| "true" to most people until GPS. Newtonian physics really became
| "true" when it was used to calculate accurate artillery tables.
| Pasteur's germ theory really became "true" when antiseptic
| surgery saved lives.
|
| Without the grounding in usefulness, science as knowledge for its
| own sake, ends up becoming theology, where we argue about how
| many angels can dance on the head of a pin based on the presumed
| Mind of God, or whether there is a single Universe or a disparate
| Multiverse based on how elegant the Math becomes.
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| Worse is "STEAM", where art is added. That was an invention by
| the Rhode Island School of Art and Design. The result has been
| maker spaces where people make collages from construction paper,
| like kindergarten.[1] No need for any heavy, expensive, dangerous
| equipment that can make real stuff.
|
| [1] https://guides.newtonfreelibrary.net/makerspace/paper
| techbio wrote:
| This argument fails, and with a poor example. Experimentation
| with cheap materials is a reasonable preparation for investing
| in more complex and time-consuming processes.
|
| Also, fine "art" is what Leonardo DaVinci is primarily known
| for but only a fraction of what he and his contemporaries did
| during the renaissance.
|
| Edit: removed the word "spurious", to here, near to "specious".
| eat_veggies wrote:
| Only heavy, expensive, dangerous equipment for big men like you
| lumost wrote:
| Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the most
| lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do not
| further scientific knowledge, or technical capability?
|
| In the 1990s the thing to do was work at a consumer website, in
| the 2000s it was hedge funds and finance, in the teens it was
| large tech companies.
|
| While the technical skill required to work in any of these areas
| is considerable, many not involved in tech do not view the output
| as progress. This may be the greatest complement to those who
| work in Tech - or it could be a sign that the incentives for what
| is viewed as true innovation are misaligned.
|
| That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that
| would only be dreams when I was a kid.
|
| - Private space companies planning mars missions within the
| decade.
|
| - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy
|
| - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected
| to a broadband connection.
|
| - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific
| conditions
|
| - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per
| charge.
|
| - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the
| internet.
|
| It's not quite the extreme shift from the 1940s to the 1960s, but
| progress is happening.
| jrsj wrote:
| Even "advancements" these companies might produce now probably
| wouldn't be particularly great considering that they're
| borderline evil
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Evil things have always been the primary driver of
| technology. A good thing is that many of these evil things
| aren't meant to kill people anymore.
| jrsj wrote:
| Not really sure what good can come out of technology built
| for surveillance and manufacturing consent though.
| ben_w wrote:
| Usually the lack of imagination is in the opposite
| direction -- "I can't imagine what can go wrong if we
| keep a close eye on your health metrics to give advanced
| warning of heart attacks/summon ambulances when your
| elderly grandparents fall/tell you when your blood sugar
| is crashing, nor what could possibly be bad about using
| CCTV to deter crime, nor from having Google Street View
| in all the places I live or want to visit", that sort of
| thing.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Evil things have always been the primary driver of
| technology.
|
| A big example is the space program. It came out of the
| desire to develop rockets that could reliably deliver
| nuclear bombs to kill millions of people in a matter of
| minutes.
| 3gg wrote:
| - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer connected
| to a broadband connection.
|
| Are you sure about that?
|
| https://en.unesco.org/news/new-report-global-broadband-acces...
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I don't understand why you said "the most lucrative professions
| for those with technical acumen do not further scientific
| knowledge, or technical capability" and then disproved it with
| so many examples at the end, do you see those as exceptions or
| not good enough?
| rmah wrote:
| In the 1990's the thing to do was work in management consulting
| or finance (in the USA at least). Eleven out of the dozen or so
| people I knew graduated MIT in 1989 and 1990 went to work for
| big name management consulting firms or wall street. The one
| who did not joined a video company that filmed promos for
| things that went boom (military hardware).
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > That being said, as of 2021 we have the following items that
| would only be dreams when I was a kid.
|
| What you wrote is typical HN fanboi nonsense:
|
| > - Private space companies planning mars missions within the
| decade.
|
| Which is pointless. And will be stopped after the first fatal
| accident.
|
| > - Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy
|
| Well, sometimes, when it's available. Unlike base load, which
| is always.
|
| > - Nearly everyone on the planet has a mobile computer
| connected to a broadband connection.
|
| It's good from a consumer standpoint, not so much from a maker
| standpoint.
|
| > - Consumer cars can almost drive themselves in specific
| conditions
|
| No, they can't. And they won't until insurance companies sign
| on, which hasn't even started.
|
| > - The most desirable cars are electric and get 300 Miles per
| charge.
|
| At double (or more) the initial price of an ICE car.
|
| > - Almost anything that can be done, can be done over the
| internet.
|
| It's handy to get things done, at the price of relentless
| tracking.
|
| What I see continuing to deteriorate in 2021:
|
| - destruction of the nuclear family thanks to Tindr and other
| apps. This is the #1 threat of our times.
|
| - CCP undermining Western civilization through spying, bribing
| and misinformation. This is #2.
|
| - a leftist government in the US with nothing but
| intersectionalist policies (ie. navel gazing, fall of Rome,
| etc.) This is #3.
|
| It's entertaining that for every misdeed attributed to Trump
| during impeachments, there's endless video of the left
| previously doing the same thing or worse, yet they feel no
| accountability for their actions. What was Pelosi thinking when
| impeaching Trump for insurrection when she spent months
| supporting the burning of our downtowns (ie. actual
| insurrections)?
| bobmaxup wrote:
| A lot can be done over the internet, but saying "almost
| anything that can be done" is reaching pretty far.
| gumby wrote:
| > Is it really that odd that "innovation" is slowing when the
| most lucrative professions for those with technical acumen do
| not further scientific knowledge, or technical capability?
|
| I think the hubris that "innovation" requires technology is,
| while common, unwarranted. Although Christiansen use
| technological examples in his book, his thesis works without
| it.
|
| Thomas Cook produced a major, world-changing innovation with no
| technology of his own. Sears was an innovation. MacDonalds was
| an innovation. The key idea of YouTube (aggregate by content
| type rather than topic) was not innovative (and wasn't even
| Youtube's idea); likewise Amazon's original idea did not
| involve developing technology (use pre existing technology to
| jump on a curve early, which is not having to manage retail
| inventory in small amounts).
|
| Personally I have a technocentric approach and am uninterested
| in companies or models that don't involve developing new
| technology but I recognize that technology is rarely innovative
| in and of itself.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I agree with your last point the most - while most things are
| not innovative on their own, sometimes the implementation in
| itself is innovative. For example, YouTube might not be
| innovative for simply allowing only video uploads, but is is
| arguably an innovation in that it can handle 500 hours of
| video uploaded every minute[0] and does so profitably (well,
| maybe [1]). Amazon also definitely didn't innovate on any
| concept with Amazon.com, but they did build AWS which started
| with the on-demand hardware/software space and opened the
| doors to thousands of startups that might actually be using
| AWS to push innovative products.
|
| 0: https://blog.youtube/press/
|
| 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-
| us...
| ffggvv wrote:
| >> Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy
|
| source? sounds laughable to me
| Elof wrote:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-
| sola...
|
| The limiting factor is exiting infra. If you had the option
| between the two in a greenfield project solar/wind would win
| hands down
| wwww4all wrote:
| The latest scientific, technological, engineering, financial
| innovation is becoming more ruthless, efficient, rent seeking
| middlemen.
|
| Is it good for science that the richest, most valuable companies
| in the world, that are worth Trillions of dollars and generate
| Billions in revenue, are basically slum lords renting out some
| pixels on screen?
|
| Is it good for society that thousands of engineering hours are
| spent on getting the boner pill ad faster to you by few
| milliseconds?
| [deleted]
| Evan7913 wrote:
| Stern's radio show only airs three times a week so I think it
| could seamlessly transition to a podcast. Yes, Stern would lose
| some of his listeners who are accustomed to listening to his show
| in their vehicles through the radio feature, but I doubt he cares
| at all. He already gave up a large portion of his audience when
| he left terrestrial radio for satellite back in 2006.
|
| Stern's large dedicated fan base could even grow over time if his
| content wasn't behind a paywall, as it is now. Though, a podcast
| service could elect to sell the show as a subscription knowing
| his fans would pay for it.
| esotericimpl wrote:
| This is a high quality post. Should be upvoted IMO.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| "Science, technology, engineering, mathematics" i.e. _STEM_ ,
| not Howard Stern ;)
| jfoutz wrote:
| Darn keming.
| matthewowen wrote:
| I like to think this is a deliberate parody of the "links on
| hacker news are just writing prompts for people who only read
| the title" joke/criticism.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Since the 80s or so the market has made STEM subordinate to
| profit and power. Like so many other things, its value is now
| gauged by how much money it makes and how much influence it has.
| Thus you get machine learning in the service of targeted ad
| revenue and public health data forced into upholding political
| narratives. Meanwhile real breakthrough research like mRNA
| vaccines can often succumb to forces that have nothing to do with
| the actual value of the work.
| https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/02/12/brutal-science-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-14 23:01 UTC)