What are the benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?

In summary, STEM learning education for kids has numerous benefits such as preparing them for future careers, helping them think clearly and critically, and countering superstitions and false beliefs. It also has economic benefits for both the individual and the country. However, despite the advancement of technology and resources for STEM education, there are still those who choose to believe in irrational and unscientific beliefs. This shows that education alone is not enough and that there are psychological factors at play in shaping one's beliefs.
  • #1
robins thomas
1
0
What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • Like
Likes davenn, russ_watters and S.G. Janssens
  • #3
robins thomas said:
What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?

So they can learn STEM stuff.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and russ_watters
  • #4
BillTre said:
So they can learn STEM stuff.
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.

Why else? To help kids think clearly and avoid stupid myths.
 
  • Like
Likes vela, pinball1970, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #5
Also consider how society is getting evermore technological and whatever they learn will become relevant in time.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #6
Very broadly and practically, thinking clearly about mass, volume, density, weight, and force.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #7
symbolipoint said:
Very broadly and practically, thinking clearly about mass, volume, density, weight, and force.
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.
 
  • Like
Likes vela, pinball1970 and PeroK
  • #8
robins thomas said:
What is benefits of STEM Learning Education for kids?

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.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #9
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.
Yes, energy health and software, algorithms and quantum computing.
The implications are far reaching.
 
  • #10
It disciplines their thinking and helps them have a richer experience of their humanity.
 
  • #11
So does learning Latin
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu, davenn and tech99
  • #12
Benefit to learning and thinking, only when student is ready for it.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #13
How can a child better tick off Mom & Dad than by understanding and exhibiting rational reasoning better than they do?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes hutchphd, BillTre and WWGD
  • #14
Countering superstitions and con artists. Fortune tellers, faith healers and anyone else making claims based on woo-hoo and conspiracy theories.

I am not saying that 'dealing with' = removing, we still have homeopathy practitioners, anti vaxers and flat earthers but I would put my money on a STEM guy in a debate.
Over a historian, musician, poet, philosopher or person with little STEM knowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
pinball1970 said:
I am not saying that 'dealing with' = removing, we still have homeopathy practitioners, anti vaxers and flat earthers
That means we have a use for better STEM education.
 
  • #16
Dealing with superstitions and con artists. Fortune tellers
BvU said:
So does learning Latin
Latin won't get us to mars.
mfb said:
That means we have a use for better STEM education.
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?
 
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
  • #17
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?
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.
 
  • #18
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.
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?

If I can use evidence to claim that the Earth is a sphere and vaccination is a good thing with my modest 1970s/80s education so can most.

If we still have flat earthers, despite STEM education with the resources it enjoys today, then the issue is not education surely?
 
  • #19
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
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.
I Agree and that was my point, education cannot be held to account for lack of reasoning In later life, not today.
I am not saying STEM education (in the west) is perfect it can't be, very little education is.
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.
@symbolipoint already made the point.
 
  • #21
'STEM education' can mean many things. Ensuring that children are provided the option to become scientists or mathematicians or engineers if they so wish is immeasurably valuable, both for the children and for the legitimacy of the whole enterprise of discovery.
 
  • #22
pinball1970 said:
Dealing with superstitions and con artists. Fortune tellers

Well, possibly. Not necessarily.

When The Amazing Randi was younger, he would do this thing where he would send an associate to try to fool the university profs. He'd do some such thing as a really cheap levitation trick. Or he'd do some sleight of hand or close-up magic trick. And he'd get them every time. Some doofus would hide a magnet in a ring and make a compass needle spin and suddenly a room full of physics profs would believe in telekinesis.

The thing to deal with fortune tellers and such-like is to let them function and take people's money. If you let yourself be fooled *TWICE* then it's on you.
 
  • #23
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
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.
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.
 
  • #25
WWGD said:
How do you mean the antivaxxer side is informed?

Poor wording on my part : the post I was responding to seemed to advocate responding to a perceived "attack against science", rather than addressing possibly legitimate concerns : towhit the phrase "drill down against...".

And what element of homeopathy has been coopted by mainstream medicine? Resonance?

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #26
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.
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.
 
  • #27
mfb said:
I don't see what would be in common with homeopathy here.

That would be the italicized bit in the quote you posted, which also includes a short explanation of my reasoning.
You didn't drink warts that had been diluted until nothing was left.
That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.
You received an active substance, and you got it at the place of the wart.
? 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
hmmm27 said:
That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.

This is in regard to talk of drinking diluted warts.

You did not make any such claim. That's true. But people who push homeopathy do make such claims. Often to truly absurd extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions
 
  • #29
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.
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 ?

Like, having nothing against trepanning (to relieve pressure on the brain), just the insistence that any benefit is due to "letting the evil spirits escape".
 
Last edited:
  • #30
hmmm27 said:
That's a pretty bizarre claim. I never said anything like that.
Yes but that is what homeopathy is/claims, diluting solutions down to extremely low level then administering as (alternative) medicine.
A STEM person (biology/pharmacology/physiology) would point out that Homeopathy does not and could not have a physiological effect.
Reasons? A STEM person would understand efficacy and dilution factors regard drug action, they would be aware of the placebo effect and also aware or meta studies carried regarding homeopathy.
If they had watched enemies of reason they would have heard a top homeopathy from the London hospital say he did not know how it worked.
 
  • #31
pinball1970 said:
If they had watched enemies of reason they would have heard a top homeopathy from the London hospital say he did not know how it worked.
What does this mean, when something has a useful effect for a purpose but nobody knows how? And then if nobody know how, anyone who wants to research or investigate only has options of attempted poor hypotheses and Statistics.

(Maybe I should not suggest poor hypotheses, because some potential investigators would have more familiarity in the area than other investigators.)
 
  • #32
symbolipoint said:
What does this mean, when something has a useful effect for a purpose but nobody knows how? And then if nobody know how, anyone who wants to research or investigate only has options of attempted poor hypotheses and Statistics.

It means they don't really have an effect.

"I don't know how it works, but when I turn my hat around I win at poker." No you don't.

"I don't know how it works, but when I wear my luck underpants, I always hit the traffic lights all green." No you don't.

"I don't know how it works, but when I squint, I can see CO2." No you can't.

"I don't know how it works, but if I dilute arsenic by a factor of ##10^{400}## it becomes a powerful cure for poisoning." No it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #33
hmmm27 said:
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 ?

Like, having nothing against trepanning (to relieve pressure on the brain), just the insistence that any benefit is due to "letting the evil spirits escape".

Sigh. The parts "that may be (historically) valid" is an empty set. Homeopathy is a scam. Not simply wrong. Not simply absurdly wrong. But inexcusably wrong to the point that anybody who pushes it must either be willfully blind or malicious.

There's a brilliant video of James Randi putting the smack-down on homeopathy. It involves him consuming an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills. The dilution factor was such that, in this jar, there was a minute chance of a single molecule of the supposed working material being present. Yet the warning label was equivalent to what you might find on a big bottle of actual drug. He took this entire jar at the start of a half hour lecture. Opened the seal, tossed the cotton packing, and took the entire bottle right in front of his audience. 100 pills, extra strength, no more than one needed. Then he gave his talk explaining homeopathy.

Trepanning "to relieve pressure on the brain" is valid in a very limited set of circumstances. A set of circumstance which the people who invented it were utterly unable to detect, and would not even ahve been able to recognize in an individual who had died from them. And which shows symptoms quite different from the usual things for which trepaning was imposed. And which the usual method of trepanning would have no benefit for and quite likely would kill the subject outright, since such conditions require a very specific and accurately placed removal of pressure, not simply drilling a hole at random. So, yes, I have quite a lot against trepanning as practiced "historically."

I'm getting to suspect a Poe.
 
  • #34
symbolipoint said:
What does this mean, when something has a useful effect for a purpose but nobody knows how? And then if nobody know how, anyone who wants to research or investigate only has options of attempted poor hypotheses and Statistics.

(Maybe I should not suggest poor hypotheses, because some potential investigators would have more familiarity in the area than other investigators.)
It means they have no idea because there is no Scientific reason why it should work.
Considering all the other evidence we know why it doesn't, why it shouldn't.
Considering the money made out of these gullible people they are hardly going to cite studies regarding placebo
 
  • #35
pinball1970 said:
It means they have no idea because there is no Scientific reason why it should work.
Considering all the other evidence we know why it doesn't, why it shouldn't.
Considering the money made out of these gullible people they are hardly going to cite studies regarding placebo
Well, if it works for some, albeit as a placebo, why not have them use it to alleviate their suffering? Note that I am not arguing for its scientific validity, just that it seems to work for some as a placebo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
122
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
13
Views
410
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top