It irks me to no end when STEM majors can’t write, communicate,
I do have to say that humanities majors do not seem to be any better. Ask most of them to provide definitions that they use, or to communicate how they arrive at their conclusions, and quite often they will be unable to do either.
but an expert engineer should have a passing familiarity with philosophy and ethics
Why? In particular, why should an engineer have an understanding of how to study systems of ethics, and what first- and second-order ethics frameworks there are?
just as a historian should have a passing familiarity with scientific laws and mathematics.
As a mathematician by education, I would also like to ask, why? What would an average historian gain from knowing that a continuous image of a compact is a compact, or that, if a diffeomorphism’s rank is less than the maximum possible one, we can construct a diffeomorphism of the same degree of continuity that works with fewer coordinates in either the domain, the codomain, or both?
I think we have different definitions of what passing knowledge, and familiarity. I think what OP is saying is that folks should leave college knowing how to think and reason mathmatically, philosophically, and scientifically. Everyone knows you don’t actually learn anything in undergrad, but you should at least know how to problem solve in your field. OP is just saying that maybe that problem solving should cast a wider net, I think.
Why should they? Everything is multidisciplinary. Even a pure mathematician needs to know how to communicate their ideas within their field.
I think we have different definitions of what passing knowledge, and familiarity.
The examples of math knowledge that I provided are taught in the first semester/first couple of semesters of university, and are covered in introductions to calculus. It is ‘passing knowledge’.
I think what OP is saying is that folks should leave college knowing how to think and reason mathmatically, philosophically, and scientifically.
Sure, but how would being able to think and reason ‘philosophically’ (whatever that means) would help, for example, a mathematician, a software developer, or an electronics engineer?
And, again, how would the sort of knowledge that I mentioned be helpful to an average historian?
Also, how much of a STEM curriculum would you be willing to replace with humanities and art courses?
Everyone knows you don’t actually learn anything in undergrad
Huh? What? No.
I learned quite a bit at that time in university. This claim is honestly baffling.
OP is just saying that maybe that problem solving should cast a wider net, I think.
What professional problems would humanities courses help STEM specialists solve?
Even a pure mathematician needs to know how to communicate their ideas within their field.
How, and which humanities disciplines would help with that better than practice with communication in the context of engaging in that field which already does train those skills?
It has also been my experience that humanities and art specialists do not communicate better than STEM specialists. Quite the opposite, actually.
EDIT: Also, do you think that the current state of communication in STEM fields in general, and in mathematics environments in particular, is somehow lacking?
I do have to say that humanities majors do not seem to be any better. Ask most of them to provide definitions that they use, or to communicate how they arrive at their conclusions, and quite often they will be unable to do either.
Why? In particular, why should an engineer have an understanding of how to study systems of ethics, and what first- and second-order ethics frameworks there are?
As a mathematician by education, I would also like to ask, why? What would an average historian gain from knowing that a continuous image of a compact is a compact, or that, if a diffeomorphism’s rank is less than the maximum possible one, we can construct a diffeomorphism of the same degree of continuity that works with fewer coordinates in either the domain, the codomain, or both?
I think we have different definitions of what passing knowledge, and familiarity. I think what OP is saying is that folks should leave college knowing how to think and reason mathmatically, philosophically, and scientifically. Everyone knows you don’t actually learn anything in undergrad, but you should at least know how to problem solve in your field. OP is just saying that maybe that problem solving should cast a wider net, I think.
Why should they? Everything is multidisciplinary. Even a pure mathematician needs to know how to communicate their ideas within their field.
The examples of math knowledge that I provided are taught in the first semester/first couple of semesters of university, and are covered in introductions to calculus. It is ‘passing knowledge’.
Sure, but how would being able to think and reason ‘philosophically’ (whatever that means) would help, for example, a mathematician, a software developer, or an electronics engineer?
And, again, how would the sort of knowledge that I mentioned be helpful to an average historian?
Also, how much of a STEM curriculum would you be willing to replace with humanities and art courses?
Huh? What? No.
I learned quite a bit at that time in university. This claim is honestly baffling.
What professional problems would humanities courses help STEM specialists solve?
How, and which humanities disciplines would help with that better than practice with communication in the context of engaging in that field which already does train those skills?
It has also been my experience that humanities and art specialists do not communicate better than STEM specialists. Quite the opposite, actually.
EDIT: Also, do you think that the current state of communication in STEM fields in general, and in mathematics environments in particular, is somehow lacking?