[sixo]

To the Stem-enlightened mind, the classical understanding and pedagogy of such ideas is underwhelming, vague, and riddled with language-game problems, compared to the precision a mathematically-rooted idea has.

They're rederiving all this stuff not out of obstinacy, but because they prefer it. I don't really identify with rationalism per se, but I'm with them on this--the humanities are over-cooked and a humanity education tends to be a tedious slog through outmoded ideas divorced from reality

[biofox]

If you contextualise the outmoded ideas as part of the Great Conversation [1], and the story of how we reached our current understanding, rather than objective statements of fact, then they becomes a lot more valuable and worthy of study.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conversation

[jstanley]

But isn't the content of LessWrong part of the Great Conversation too?

[jay_kyburz]

I have kids in high school. We sometimes talk about the difference between the black and white of math or science, and the wishy washy grey of the humanities.

You can be right or wrong in math. You have can an opinion in English.

[bmacho]

You can be right or wrong in math and philosophy. You have can an opinion in any other sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, medical sciences, history, you name it.

[greener_grass]

I suggest teaching them about the Problem of Induction [1].

Scientific thinking is not the same as mathematical thinking and it becomes quite wishy washy grey if you zoom in too far!

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[HDThoreaun]

You can definitely have wrong opinions in the humanities.