robins thomas
- 1
- 0
What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?
The discussion revolves around the benefits of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education for children. Participants explore various aspects of STEM learning, including its importance for individual development, societal relevance, and its potential to counteract misinformation and superstitions.
Participants express a range of views on the benefits and limitations of STEM education. While some points of agreement exist regarding the value of critical thinking and the relevance of STEM in modern society, significant disagreements remain about the effectiveness of education in addressing misinformation and the psychological factors influencing belief.
Participants acknowledge that the effectiveness of STEM education may depend on individual readiness and that the discussion includes various interpretations of what constitutes STEM learning.
This discussion may be of interest to educators, parents considering STEM education for their children, and individuals interested in the societal implications of scientific literacy.
robins thomas said:What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?
That is about it. Some kids are not ready yet, but trying must be done, since learning could be easier later and especially since at least a few will go in for more such STEM education and careers.BillTre said:So they can learn STEM stuff.
I would be even more general: Thinking clearly about things. Learning that you can find objective, well-backed answers to questions. If you see something you don't understand, study it, instead of making up some (very likely wrong) explanation on the spot or blindly accepting whatever answer someone gives you.symbolipoint said:Very broadly and practically, thinking clearly about mass, volume, density, weight, and force.
robins thomas said:What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?
Yes, energy health and software, algorithms and quantum computing.PeroK said:There are potentially huge economic benefits for the individual and the country. That's why it's so important for China, for example, to overtake the US as the leading STEM superpower.
The future economically may be decided by STEM capability.
That means we have a use for better STEM education.pinball1970 said:I am not saying that 'dealing with' = removing, we still have homeopathy practitioners, anti vaxers and flat earthers
Latin won't get us to mars.BvU said:So does learning Latin
STEM education of the 1910's gave us Paul Dirac. They had the most basic equipment and resources back then. Black board and a few textbooks?mfb said:That means we have a use for better STEM education.
Pretty sure there were plenty of them back then. Nostalgia is not what it used to be: not all people were reasonable, rational back then.pinball1970 said:Dealing with superstitions and con artists. Fortune tellers
Latin won't get us to mars.
STEM education of the 1910's gave us Paul Dirac. They had the most basic equipment and resources back then. Black board and a few textbooks?
All this tech today and we still have flat earthers?
What happened in the last 100 years?
Did STEM education of the 1910s only work on the likes of Paul Dirac? Or STEM education of the 1920s only work on the likes Richard Feynman?WWGD said:Pretty sure there were plenty of them back then. Nostalgia is not what it used to be: not all people were reasonable, rational back then.
I Agree and that was my point, education cannot be held to account for lack of reasoning In later life, not today.WWGD said:Surely not, pretty sure there are psychological aspects to it and some people just want to believe certain things; truth is not the top priority for everyone. Michael( Edit:)Shermer wrote this book : "Why people believe weird things". I didnt read it but I'll see if I can find a copy near me. Edit2: It comes down to choosing to use reason as a basis to make decisions, live one's life. I am not sure how those choices are made, subconsciously, most likely, at an individual level.
pinball1970 said:Dealing with superstitions and con artists. Fortune tellers
pinball1970 said:Back to the benefits of STEM knowledge, breaking down and drilling down the anti vaxers and homeopathy arguments is more convincing than without that STEM grounding.
How do you mean the antivaxxer side is informed? And what element of homeopathy has been coopted by mainstream medicine? Resonance? Is there any reasonable evidence in favor of either? Not sure I get your points.hmmm27 said:STEM subjects involve abstract thinking. Many of today's important issues - that require individual cooperation and some sacrifice of convenience - involve more than remembering not to step in dog poop, or eat laundry detergent.
It would be easy enough to use STEM for making a sociopathic argument against vaccinations on an individual basis.
Why should only one side of an argument be informed ?
Likewise, homeopathy has at least one element that's been coopted by modern medicine.
WWGD said:How do you mean the antivaxxer side is informed?
And what element of homeopathy has been coopted by mainstream medicine? Resonance?
I don't see what would be in common with homeopathy here. You didn't drink warts that had been diluted until nothing was left. You received an active substance, and you got it at the place of the wart.hmmm27 said:When I was a child a Plantar's wart was removed from my foot by the expedience of introducing to the locale a vaccine of some kind ; the immune system responded to that and, while in the area, wiped out the previously ignored wart.
That strikes me as being descendant of the homeopathic practice of similia similibus curantur, which (assumed) efficacy may be a result of hyperstimulating the body's repair systems.
mfb said:I don't see what would be in common with homeopathy here.
That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.You didn't drink warts that had been diluted until nothing was left.
? I don't pretend to be a doctor, but if the treatment had included active TB cells, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Or, at least, I wouldn't.You received an active substance, and you got it at the place of the wart.
hmmm27 said:That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.
Well, okay : I've never met one, personally (nor on the 'net). I take it that what seems like kneejerk malice is directed towards an ignorant reasoning framework, rather than any parts of the practice that may be (historically) valid ?DEvens said:You did not make any such claim. That's true. But people who push homeopathy do make such claims. Often to truly absurd extremes.
Yes but that is what homeopathy is/claims, diluting solutions down to extremely low level then administering as (alternative) medicine.hmmm27 said:That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.