I think the below (both versions) is true, but can't we make a similar case for mathematics? A la:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurA
I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity mathematics goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art Math has to be a core component of the STEM acronym? I really don't see a reason for this, as why should art have a monopoly on creativity??? why should mathematics have a monopoly on quantitative analysis? For many (most?) people, the word art math means much more than applied creativity engineering/science quantification, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art math are completely separated from many components of STEM, in a way that the various subjects part of the STEM superfield are much more closely related. Additionally, the challenges faced by STEM fields are similar, whereas the challenges faced by art math fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.
|
If you're reading this wondering what math would be outside SET, back up and think about all of the different fields of mathematics versus what SET really uses day to day. Yes, we can pick specific examples for any area someone names, much the way we have been with artistic fields. But there's no denying there's a huge spectrum of useful mathematics outside of what springs to mind with "engineering" or "science" or "technology"--that's why it's called "math". This is true for all of them. If I say "engineering and zoology" or "science and mathematical topology", laypeople won't jump to a natural understanding other than the STEM acronym itself. On the other hand I'm sure if you talked to someone of a related background, they could easily explain both overlaps--just as we've been doing herein. I think much of this dissonance is that we're using all the terms to connote a specificity they don't actually mean, which is in part rooted in our a priori understanding of "STEM" itself.
I don't think there's a fair way to quantify these overlaps, and I'm not even really arguing that the overlap with art is as large as SET or STEM. But it's worth asking why we're drawing the floor where we are. I draw it here myself as well. But I have to ask myself how much of "A is the odd one out" is simply from the inertia of us understanding S, T, E, and M as STEM, even though their overlaps are not complete either?