The Erosion of Depth: Philosophy to STEM

A Crisis of Depth

In Newton's era (I assume you know why I am talking about Newton's Era—mostly because of René Descartes' mechanical philosophy rather than Aristotelian or medieval philosophy before Newton), science was inseparable from philosophy, and there were a few key reasons for this:

Methodology: Questions about how to acquire knowledge (empiricism vs. rationalism) were philosophical.
Metaphysics: Concepts like force, gravity, and space demanded philosophical interpretations. Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica remains as much a philosophical treatise as a scientific one.

This philosophical foundation began eroding as science became institutionalized. By the 20th century, a new tension emerged

The Tension Between Pragmatic Skills and Deep Learning

Before proceeding, I acknowledge that not everyone will agree with me. In fact, that is inherent—not all individuals are alike. Not all are interested in the pursuit of nature’s laws but rather in life’s pragmatic challenges. Let me clarify: I am not “criticizing the current educational system” entirely. However, I argue that we are creating “humans as laborers programmed to obey” rather than thinkers. To me, this is nothing less than killing creativity and curiosity, trapping people in a conformist rat race where they merely “keep themselves breathing” without daring to question why they exist.

The Pragmatic Turn in STEM Education

You can learn Python without understanding CPU architecture—industries don’t expect this from code maintainers.
Engineering degrees may focus on TensorFlow frameworks rather than the linear algebra behind them.
You can learn to write Bernoulis Principles derivatation without actually learning to know the energy state or the very foundational assumptions and ideas behind the same.

Why this happens:

I understand the reasons—industry demands, time constraints, specialization, and the reality that most people (in a world of “distractions and social gratifications”) don’t love deep study.

Consequences: Surface-level understanding reduces creativity. Rote learning stifles the ability to question assumptions or innovate beyond established paradigms.

Why This Works... and Will Continue: Economic pressures dominate: Societal success (employment, marriage, home ownership via EMIs) often overrides the “why” questions. This makes sense—not every student needs to be a philosopher-scientist if they thrive through focused training.

Transition to Societal Symptoms As this systemic shift manifests beyond classrooms

Symptoms of a Surface-Level Society

Case 1: The Illusion of Consumer Knowledge

Consider car advertisements. Buyers feel they “know everything” about ownership, yet ads emphasize colors and smiling actors—not critical data like fuel efficiency, seat capacity, weight, warranties, or parts availability. This mirrors how education teaches us to “accept” rather than analyze.

Case 2: Democracy's Erosion

We’re told “voting is your right,” but not taught to scrutinize claims. The result? A populace that trusts slogans over substance—a direct parallel to students who memorize TensorFlow syntax without grasping linear algebra.

Transition to Philosophy’s Role These examples seem unrelated to phi- losophy, but their roots lie in epistemology

The Unseen Thread: Philosophy in Daily Life

I admit these are poor examples to “prove” the need for natural philosophy. However, they illustrate how skepticism and epistemology (studying knowledge itself) shape decisions. I didn’t learn to vote or buy cars rationally—philosophy taught me to demand evidence, not accept surfaces.

Conclusion: A Call for Depth

The crisis began in schools: we’re taught to “accept,” not question. Until society values “natural philosophers” over “3-month bootcamp coders,” we’ll produce:

Unemployed degree-holders
Modern wage slaves
Uncritical voters
Employed yet lacking a sense of purpose—a nod to existentialist thought.

Final Note: This is about creating humans versus “well-programmed labor” and promoting docility in graduates.

Noam Chomsky's on Education Debt

Students who acquire large debts to put themselves through school are unlikely to contemplate societal change. When individuals are trapped in a system of debt, they cannot afford the time for reflection. Tuition fee increases serve as a "disciplinary technique," and by the time students graduate, they are not only burdened with debt but have also internalized a "disciplinarian culture." This renders them efficient components of the consumer economy.

Personal Note

This is an early draft as a blog, and we will later back it up with well-researched publications and verifiable evidence. Our sole intention is to inspire a love for science and, above all, to celebrate the beauty of questioning whatever is served to us. In a world where we are constantly connected and misinformation is always knocking at our door, it is essential to maintain skepticism and learn to make rational decisions—especially when "democracy" is increasingly manipulated or corrupted by a select few.