Should we all face the fact non STEM subjects are inferior to STEM

Not replying to anything in particular, just one point caught my eye. I heavily agree with this point, that STEM subjects are creative in nature. I can't describe this viewpoint eloquently enough myself, and thusly, I leave here a passage from Lockharts' Lament:

"The first thing to understand is that mathematics is an art. The difference between math and the other arts, such as music and painting, is that our culture does not recognize it as such.

Everyone understands that poets, painters, and musicians create works of art, and are expressing themselves in word, image, and sound. In fact, our society is rather generous when it comes to creative expression; architects, chefs, and even television directors are considered to be working artists. So why not mathematicians?

Part of the problem is that nobody has the faintest idea what it is that mathematicians do. The common perception seems to be that mathematicians are somehow connected with science— perhaps they help the scientists with their formulas, or feed big numbers into computers for some reason or other. There is no question that if the world had to be divided into the “poetic dreamers” and the “rational thinkers” most people would place mathematicians in the latter category.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there is nothing as dreamy and poetic, nothing as radical, subversive, and psychedelic, as mathematics. It is every bit as mind blowing as cosmology or physics (mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any), and allows more freedom of expression than poetry, art, or music (which depend heavily on properties of the physical universe). Mathematics is the purest of the arts, as well as the most misunderstood."

Good day to you all.

Never mind this whole STEM thing. I just want to say Physics > Mathematics. .

Oh and btw "mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any"? Link please?

Enjoy.

Never mind this whole STEM thing. I just want to say Physics > Mathematics. .

Oh and btw "mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any"? Link please?

Enjoy.

That's quite possibly the most outlandish thing I've read on TSR thus far.

$\displaystyle \mathrm{Physics} \subset \mathrm{Mathematics} \Rightarrow \mathrm{Mathematics} > \mathrm{Physics.}$

$\Box$

Physics is amazing as is Mathematics and I think the preference of one over the other becomes personal. Physics just lacks that aesthetical sense for me, not pure enough. For some people, Mathematics may seem too unfocused, too unconnected.

Each to his own, I say.

Mathematics includes physics. Physics is a field within mathematics.
$\therefore$ mathematics > physics


I haven't got any sources right now, but mathematicians/theoretical physicists predicted black holes early to mid 20th century I think. But conclusive experimental evidence is very recent.


I love physics, but had to make that point.

Pfft. You're such a typical Mathematician. Physics is not Maths. They both help each other. Maths is too rigorous at times. You guys never have fundamental understanding in physical situations. A physicist could look at a system and come to an approximate conclusion without measurements, a mathematician doesn't have that understanding, they're too deep into the maths.

I just wanted to start this because you seemed like the type of guy who thinks Physics is "some type" of Maths. Well, you're incorrect .

Maths was one of my choices, but as I progressed through AS, Maths was just too generalised for me.

I love both fields too! .

I do think physics is an area within maths.
Surely maths entails the search for the deepest understanding of any problem, physics often curve-fits or otherwise modifies theories. Maths searches for the ultimate answer.
Have you studied mechanics within maths?

I'm not sure if you're arguing theory vs experiment or maths vs physics.

Pfft. You're such a typical Mathematician . Physics is not Maths. They both help each other. Maths is too rigorous at times. You guys never have fundamental understanding in physical situations. A physicist could look at a system and come to an approximate conclusion without measurements, a mathematician doesn't have that understanding, they're too deep into the maths.

I just wanted to start this because you seemed like the type of guy who thinks Physics is "some type" of Maths. Well, you're incorrect .

Also, Theoretical Physicist = Still a Physicist. There are some guys who switch between being a Mathematician and Physicist depending on the situation (Could include myself here).

Zacken, Maths was one of my choices, but as I progressed through AS, Maths was just too generalised for me.

I love both fields! .

About the theoretical physicist/mathematician thing, what's the difference? Again I think we are confusing two arguments, because i brought this up when someone said that black holes were found in theory before experiment.

Pfft. You're such a typical Mathematician

Zacken, Maths was one of my choices, but as I progressed through AS, Maths was just too generalised for me.

I love both fields! .

Typical Mathematician, y'know that's a compliment to us, right?

That's where it comes to personal preference. I just loved that generalised aspect of Maths. - Could never deal with the approximations that Physicists settled for.

We love our assumptions and approximations.

We love our assumptions and approximations. . Dirac even guessed an equation, turned out to be right. Haha!

See that's where I think mathematics has greater understanding. In maths there is no 'guessing equations' and hoping for the best. In order to move forward, you need full understanding.