Empirical data and analytical thinking is the ultimate arbiter of the truth and the most liberating.

[RandomPoster]

The hard sciences, mathematics, engineering, and the trades are overwhelming focused on hard data and analytical thinking to test the proposed solutions of problems. They are skeptical of anecdotal and speculative evidence as well as cheap rhetoric. Empirical data in conjunction with dispassionate analytical logic is the only legitimate arbiter of the truth and emotion is an obstacle that clouds the judgement.

The liberal arts scream the mantra of critical thinking being some mystical superset of analytical and logical thinking when determining what "makes sense". They say it all combines to a deeper understanding, yet tend to often focus more on social issues that gives the comfort of your position being harder to concretely prove or disprove. Shouldn't the arbiters of truth be drawn to areas where their ideas can be definitively tested?

If the critical thinkers of the liberal arts are the arbiters of truth and quantification is so overrated, then why are the more quantifiable hard sciences, which are populated primarily with dispassionate, intelligent social recluses nowhere near as infested with pseudo-intellectual BS as the liberal arts with all their charming con men that play to mob mentality? I contend that there is way more bulls**t being espoused by the so-called critical thinkers of the humanities and social sciences than there is coming out of STEM. This is because in STEM, your ideas actually have to work, as opposed to simply "make sense" to a gullible crowd.

I also contend that STEM is less oppressive of unpopular and counter-intuitive ideas because you can always shut naysayers up, regardless of their popularity or authority, when you're crazy ideas actually work. Those weird brainy nerds sure have a lot of strange, creative, counter-intuitive ideas and they aren't peddling them with charm and social guile. They go off alone and build a solution when everyone else thought they were bats**t crazy. They prefer to work in a field where if your idea works, it simply works and the naysayers and hecklers can't say shit. As far as so called "a priori" senses are concerned, sensory feedback is not where we envision our potential solutions to problems, it is where we test them and it is a hell of a lot better testing ground than any argumentative "critical analysis" can ever provide.

Also, the areas of study always complaining about social power structures are the most oppressive of unpopular or counter-intuitive ideas that offend or don't "make sense" to the crowd because those fields are so obsessed with the very social power dynamics they are always complaining about that controlling the narrative becomes so ridiculously crucial in any exchange of ideas. Disagreements become emotional affairs decided by who can keep the other side on the defensive and "critique" their ideas into a confusing mess, often by shouting them down and berating them in an "impassioned" manner. When confronted with empirical data, they dodge off onto non-quantifiable tangents. The isolated individual who doesn't think like everyone else has a harder time against the mob because it is both more difficult to obtain empirical evidence and the mob argues around it to no end even when you have it. It is not a constructive environment and is not the ideal environment in which to determine the truth of a god dam* thing.

 

[PK1]

Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of “liberal arts”.
One definition is:
“Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern"

Liberal arts, such as philosophy & psychology, are complementary to engineering, not a detraction.
For example, logic is in the domain of philosophy, and vital in engineering.
Balancing emotions with intellect is a psychological strength in engineering too, esp in its business side.
.

 

[RandomPoster]

Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of “liberal arts”.
One definition is:
“Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern"

Liberal arts, such as philosophy & psychology, are complementary to engineering, not a detraction.
For example, logic is in the domain of philosophy, and vital in engineering.
Balancing emotions with intellect is a psychological strength in engineering too, esp in its business side.
.

A demonstration of what is considered an exchange of ideas in modern liberal arts.



I can find dozens, if not hundreds of videos of a bunch of overly emotional political activists from the leftist side behaving like that. Show me videos of all the Engineering students running around in a mob shouting people down over some political issue.

 

[PK1]

Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of “liberal arts”.
One definition is:
“Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern"

Liberal arts, such as philosophy & psychology, are complementary to engineering, not a detraction.
For example, logic is in the domain of philosophy, and vital in engineering.
Balancing emotions with intellect is a psychological strength in engineering too, esp in its business side.
.

A demonstration of what is considered an exchange of ideas in modern liberal arts.



I can find dozens, if not hundreds of videos of a bunch of overly emotional political activists from the leftist side behaving like that. Show me videos of all the Engineering students running around in a mob shouting people down over some political issue.

Are you lumping political extremists with the general grouping of academics in the “liberal arts”, which includes mathematics & physics that are also vital to engineering?

It seems to me that you are painting a picture with a very wide brush that has little accuracy.
.

 

[RandomPoster]

Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of “liberal arts”.
One definition is:
“Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern"

Liberal arts, such as philosophy & psychology, are complementary to engineering, not a detraction.
For example, logic is in the domain of philosophy, and vital in engineering.
Balancing emotions with intellect is a psychological strength in engineering too, esp in its business side.
.

A demonstration of what is considered an exchange of ideas in modern liberal arts.



I can find dozens, if not hundreds of videos of a bunch of overly emotional political activists from the leftist side behaving like that. Show me videos of all the Engineering students running around in a mob shouting people down over some political issue.

Are you lumping political extremists with the general grouping of academics in the “liberal arts”, which includes mathematics & physics that are also vital to engineering?

It seems to me that you are painting a picture with a very wide brush that has little accuracy.
.

If you're going to define Liberal Arts so widely that it includes everything from Gender Studies to STEM topics such as Mathematics and Physics, THAT is a wide brush that makes the term meaningless.

 

[RandomPoster]

Here are some quotes from an article on Critical Thinking vs. Analytical Thinking. Most of the articles on the subject that aren't vague possess similar nonsense.

"The purposes of critical thinking and analytical thinking are not the same. You do not employ critical thinking strategies to figure out the solution to a complex question or to problem-solve."

WTF!? So, in other words, what the author calls "Critical Thinking" is absolutely useless.

"Rather, analytical thinking is used for this purpose. However, you would not use analytical thinking if your main goal was to come up with a belief or perception about something. In this case, you would use critical thinking methods."

So, "Critical Thinking" is not about solving puzzles, building things, and even in the exchange of ideas, it is not about making an argument of your own. It is about shifting the burden of proof in an argument and forever trying to keep the other "side" on the defensive. It is not constructive. It is the go to mode of less intelligent individuals because it is easier to criticize than it is to contribute. Actual critical thinking, better described as scrutiny in my opinion, is simply a subset of analytical thinking. The goal of analysis is neither re-affirming nor critical, although the outcome may be either or both.

"The processes of analytical thinking and critical thinking are different. Analytical thinking uses a linear and focused process, with one thought following the other in a stream-like formation. Critical thinking occurs more in circles and can go around and around until a conclusion is stumbled upon."

Critical Thinking occurs more in circles and can go around and around until a conclusion is stumbled upon? How could anyone view this as positive?

Differences Between Analytical & Critical Thinking | Synonym

Colleges should be nothing more than trade schools for elite professions. If you want to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, etc. you go to college. Otherwise you enter the workforce or possibly attend a trade school first. It is also true that many women would be better off finding an appropriate husband to take care of them and get to work producing children for the nation. That should not be frowned upon, except praised. Also, many fields of study in the Humanities and Social Sciences should be completely defunded.