[6thaccount2]

Engineer here with an anecdotal story. My sibling has a doctorate in liberal arts (teaches at a university and publishes papers) and reads quite a bit and has said similar things on how this aids in critical thinking. They're great in some discussions, but all technology is essentially magic and math is complete gobblegook to this individual. This isn't to say they aren't smart and don't add value to society, but the things this person and many of their colleagues lack (basic numerical literacy) is important and a big part of what separates us from far more primitive cultures over centuries. I understand specialization and how it is vital, but a vast window of the universe is closed off to them.

[corodra]

Oh agreed. Specialization isn't perfect. But a lot of engineers, I think, like being "well rounded(?)". Mostly when it comes to making things. But, if you take the youtube channel Tech Ingredients. That dude is like the spirit animal to engineers. The guy can build anything from freezers, AC, jet engines, speakers and even make his own whisky. And again, I'm a sub-par engineer both mechanical and CS, but the problem solving skills and maths I know, there's very little in the real world that I get lost to. To build things out of my skill set, I still have a learning curve, but to me nothing is impossible. And so far, nothing really has been for me. If one human has built it in the past, I know I can eventually do it. But like you said, a liberal arts type, they just really gloss over.

I'd also argue, take a decent engineer in any field. Structural, mechanical, CS, electrical, whatever. Now tell them to teach themselves... oh, I don't know, philosophy? Maybe law. Well, I'd argue law is a more "scientific" version of philosophy because it does have "more hard rules". Me using those quotes are important to understanding what I mean. But, I think an engineer is well suited, after half a decade or a full decade of working, to teach themselves anything. Because that's part of the job. Learn, learn and learn because you're not done learning. Oh, and you need to try learning things that no one else has discovered too. Then learn more. I guess, I just have never seen an LA later learn engineering. But I see engineers learn LA.

[claudiawerner]

Basic numerical literacy is important for everyone, but it is no exaggeration to say that moral, political and philosophical (and that includes the philosophy of science) development also separates us from far more primitive creatures over centuries. To me it makes equally as much sense to say that all that development is closed off to engineers (and I say this as someone finishing up an engineering degree myself).

[corodra]

I do disagree. Many other creatures play politics and morality. Wolves and chimps have power and political struggles all the time. Along with taking care of those injured. But an individual that has a history of taking more than their share and not helping the group doesn't get as much help when injured. They do have their own morality. Whether we agree with it or not, is not really our place. The same type of discussion that brought up when discussing how one country should conduct business as that's an infringement of sovereignty. Even paleolithic hominids (a recent fascination of mine) show culture and morality because of bones with massive fractures that healed over time. Said hominid then lived for many more years. A sign they were taken care of. The more philosophy you learn, the more you realize that we're really not that different. We're just smart enough to see how different we are, but too stupid to realize how similar we are.

So, how is morality, politics and philosophy closed off to engineers? You make it seem that an engineer is pure cold and calculating. That's just a terrible stereotype that, I thought died off quite a while ago. Then again, that stupid ass show The Big Bang Theory kind of brought that idea back.

Engineering teachings teach you to constantly learn. Essential, an engineer is never done learning until they die. This spills over to other topics just fine. The difference is, there's already a skillset of finding accurate and reliable sources, creating your own lesson plans (in a way) and diving into said subject.

[claudiawerner]

>Wolves and chimps have power and political struggles all the time. Along with taking care of those injured. But an individual that has a history of taking more than their share and not helping the group doesn't get as much help when injured.

This is not politics. I feel as though this discussion is stupid, since I think it's reasonable to say that the degree to which animals have "politics" is lesser than those animals which have tool use. You cannot forget that technology is always coupled to a certain stage of historical development, it does not happen in a vacuum. There is no such thing as production in general.

>Said hominid then lived for many more years. A sign they were taken care of.

A lot of animals take care of each other, it doesn't mean much in the way of how humans do it.

>So, how is morality, politics and philosophy closed off to engineers?

It is closed off in the same way that engineering is closed off to liberal arts majors, as the parent commenter claimed. That is to say, you must learn it, and learn how to argue about it. Of course I don't claim that you need to be a liberal arts major to be moral or even have cogent ideas about morality, but you still need to learn how to argue your point if you're talking about it, and you can only do that by learning about what's been argued before.

[6thaccount2]

First of all, congrats on finishing up your degree!

As a counterpoint to the above, I believe most highschool students can read the publications of many professors in the liberal arts and understand what they're saying (Ex: literary criticism) although it helps to have some background knowledge of the period in question. How many highschool students or even liberal arts professors can read and comprehend practically anything that someone in the engineering department published? My point is that it takes a lot more effort to get a working knowledge of something like physics. Although not everyone can and should be able to read a quantum mechanics textbook, I think the average adult should know about things like entropy. If you don't agree with STEM, at least change the course requirements so that the technically inclined can get more math and science courses under their belt. Your country may already do that, but it isn't super common in the US (public or private schools). My parents forced me to go to Catholic school growing up (public schools were terrible in my area) and this resulted in mandatory 1-hour of daily religion class for 13 years that I could have used for something else I would've preferred (math, science, engineering, programming, philosophy). Regardless of one's views, I question the sheer breadth of the US system over depth.