can we believe what we see?, page-10

thats an interesting phrasing of your post tappie.... and as a former student of applied science, which involved humanities as mush as the much more tightly defined sciences, I agree the two broad categories of higher education are distinct with significant differences in approach to critical thinking.

the STEM studies rely on empirical data, quantitative research. as such these are "cut and dried" studies with little nuance or room to appreciate uncritical thinking. whereas critical thinking is a branch of philosophy, as is ethics, and as such its imo humanities which produces a more refined understanding of critical analysis and how to approach critical development of "understanding".

one isn't more important than the other, with STEM studies formulating critical analysis mathematically while the philosophic approach looks much more strongly at "meaning" and implications as well as effects (physical impacts) and affects (psychological/existential and impact on mental wellbeing).

imo, its not either/or tappie. both forms of study are equally valid and even more importantly, when both quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined one gets a much better, wholistic appreciation of critical thinking.

none exemplified this better than René Descartes. his method of exercising doubt was the first and most profound exercise in doubt that demonstrated how we cannot trust our perceptions as such are entirely subjective and so at risk of misleading our understanding. so while exercising rejection on empirical understanding, he then built his "truth" on qualitative analysis.

i.e. both sides of critical analysis are necessary for a fuller understanding.

the political approach to universities 10 years ago was nothing more than a fundamental lack of understanding of the value to higher education. merely ignorance..... so I won't add that in, as it is simply a prime example of when critical thinking is absent.

now I take it from your post that you have an understanding of ethics, critical analysis etc that relies on quantitative analysis. is this correct? do you think that critical analysis only has validity when it can be numerically evaluated? ..... what was your field of study tappie? I'm guessing engineering....