Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
Not sure I buy this distinction is warranted. It seems like you wrote a definition of art in order to get this conclusion but even so, how does this conclusion necessarily follow?
|
It was meant to be a curation of my train of thought but maybe you have a point. I welcome alternate meanings for "(The) Art(s)" to compare.
I didn't consider the end of my post to be so much of a conclusion as an observation. Words matter. The choice of STEAM vs STEM reflects on priorties: developing well-rounded individuals by incorporating art vs spotlighting science. They're both important but you can only have one highest priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
There are plenty of fields that are clearly in the STEM world, such as architecture, that are also clearly in the world of art. If some fields in STEM involve art, how can we say it is not a part of STEM?
|
Most fields are a little bit of both science and art, even the ones at the extremes. Both art and science are part of the human experience. Using the term STEM over STEAM is not meant to bannish art. It's meant to highlight science.
Your story about your engineer friend at the auto company and your observation about the benefits of engaging in artistic thinking support what I call "developing well-rounded individuals." That is, enhancing all modes of thinking by diversifying the kinds of thinking in which one engages. You can argue that by promoting well-rounded thinking, one is supporting scientific engagement since well-rounded thinking benefits all forms of thinking. One could also argue, as others here have done, that it also dilutes the focus on science. Taken to an extreme, we wouldn't be talking about science anymore. It would just be called learning and doing.
I'm not asking which one is important: spotlighting science vs developing well-rounded individuals. They're both important. I'm not trying to advocate one over the other. I'm wondering which one FIRST considers its highest priority.