First of all you have this ridiculous straw man:
> Shaming STEM folks for their mistakes, and claiming the humanities is the cure-all.
This is so not the article is saying. It basically says that the future world leaders will be among computer science folks, and we need more people to get into STEM, but we should also feed them with some humanities education as well. Those are completely different things. There is no shaming nor fanatical claims. They just want STEM graduates to have more holistic point of views.
> She displayed no ability to teach the scientists much, ...
You can't attack the premise of the article by sharing a single anecdote from your past which only shows the inability of the person in question of defending her arguments properly in that day and location. You can't generalize that and use it to attack the worth of humanities. It is ridiculous.
> Technical and scientific crowds understand problems, and will jump on real solutions.
Not so easy. A "problem" is not always a purely technical thing. Most of the time a problem needs to be analyzed from a humanities perspective as well as a pure technical perspective before jumping to the solving part. For instance:
- What if the problem is not worth solving?
- What if the "real" solution is malevolent?
- What if the problem is not really a problem?
- What if the human factors regarding the problem somehow necessiate alternative solutions than the most obvious, efficient, or "real" one?
...
In the end, I found your comments to be too defensive. Nobody is attacking STEM people. Take it easy.
Closing question:
Is it a coincidence that we are heading to a technological dystopia and it is being implemented by the best engineers in the world? What is missing?
I was just really bothered by the statement "Her presentation was a lot of the sort of thing that this article is trying to do: shaming STEM folks ...", as I didn't think at all that this was what the article is trying to do.
Often, especially (in my experience) when communicated to someone in an engineering profession, that's an exhortation to not automatically assume the applicability of the listener's pre-existing ethical/methodological frameworks to the problem at hand. In other words, to consider something with minimized bias. Bias isn't always bigotry or a tendency towards specific solutions--it can also manifest as a pre-disposition towards previous "one-size-fits-all" deontological tools, which do apply to many situations, but may not yield comprehension, empathy, or minimized negative consequence when applied to a given problem.
Examples:
1. Engineer: "I was asked if it's possible to build $intrusive_privacy_invading_product so I provided an answer by building it". Critic: "Could you construct it in a way that harms to privacy are minimized?" A mis-chosen framework there might be "exercising craftsmanship or capability is its own reward", or absolute meritocracy.
2. Liberal: "Gun ownership is harmful therefore should be banned." Critic: "Can you accomplish your goal in a way that allows people that genuinely enjoy guns to continue to do so? Your approach risks polarization at best and outright failure at worst." A mis-chosen framework there might be utilitarianism, or "short term political ends are the primary focus".
3. Conservative: "Regulations are bad, because they inherently restrict liberty." Critic: "Are some liberties more important than others? Your approach risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Mis-chosen frameworks there might be focus on influential historical figures' political realities, or individualism.
None of the frameworks chosen above are bad, inherently flawed (by their own moral compasses, of course), or inapplicable. However, they might be less useful as decisionmaking tools than some others.
Nobody can step all the way outside of their chosen deontology (can you use that as a noun? I hope so), but often people who ask that you "just take time to think" are requesting you to at least try.
Technical and scientific crowds understand technical problems. But non-technical problems go completely unnoticed.
Or as one of the actors on the show Silicon Valley wrote:
> As a cast member on a show about tech, our job entails visiting tech companies/conferences etc. We meet ppl eager to show off new tech.
> And they're amazing, wonderful, necessary products, right?
> Often we'll see tech that is scary. I don't mean weapons etc. I mean altering video, tech that violates privacy, stuff w obv ethical issues.
> And we'll bring up our concerns to them.
> They don't even have a pat rehearsed answer. They are shocked at being asked. Which means nobody is asking those questions.
To me it seems like you're implying that studying ethics is pointless because you or others didn't get anything out of their talk. Is that what you actually meant?
It pained me to be in the audience for the ethicist's talk and following Q&A session. She was unable to provide any framework for thinking about ethics which the scientists present did not already have. The scientists asked direct questions about how to approach specific ethical issues they saw in their own work, and her responses were all along the lines of "well, the important thing is that you think hard about it."
She displayed no ability to teach the scientists much, and no willingness to dive into discussion of their issues. Her presentation was a lot of the sort of thing that this article is trying to do: shaming STEM folks for their mistakes, and claiming the humanities is the cure-all. Let me make a claim: if the humanities are really a solution for problems created by STEM, all you should need to do is demonstrate the case. Technical and scientific crowds understand problems, and will jump on real solutions.
(Aside: of the STEM undergraduate programs I'm aware of in the US, they all require somewhere between 20% and 50% of classes to be in the humanities or social sciences)