I have a hunch that I can't confirm so I want opinions and insights on it.
First some relevant facts:
-
Philosophy has been separated from science. Nowadays, the era of physicists and mathematicians being also philosophers at the same time has ended and the modern average STEM student has hardly been taught any philosophy. In fact, some famous modern physicists have very poor opinion of philosophy.
-
The 20th century streak of breakthroughs in science, especially physics and engineering, has ended, and relatively little (in comparison) has come from some the 21st century's major research paths such as the search for dark matter/energy or for a theory of quantum gravity.
-
The time during which the first two facts of the list transitioned to their modern state, the 20th century, was a time during which the capitalist order was shaken and afraid, while socialist theories and philosophy was getting verified and confirmed to be correct in the real world.
My hypothesis is therefore the following:
As socialism's successes were starting to seriously challenge the bourgeois theories of capitalism, bourgeois academics started to see science graduates practicing and engaging with philosophy, particularly economics graduates, as a threat.
But they couldn't tell economics students and no others that they didn't need philosophy, not only would that look suspicious but the intersections between economics and other sciences would have come back around to bite them eventually.
So they took the decision to convince all science graduates that they didn't need philosophy, that it didn't matter if their hypothesis aren't grounded in reality as long as the math gives the right answer.
Capitalist academia essentially condemned philosophy to only be studied by language and/or art academics and actively started to paint philosophy as being separated from science.
What do you all think?
One thing I’ve noticed is that back when I was a kid, before the term STEM was in use, when people talked about science and engineering it was all about what they produced. An engineer was great because they figured out how to make the more efficient, more reliable widget that would make our lives easier and more productive. It was all about the use value. Sure, they’d make a decent living doing so, but that was secondary to what they produced or discovered. This was the tail end of the Cold War, when capital propaganda was putting an emphasis on claiming quality of life was better under capitalism than state socialism.
In the post-Cold War era though, without that existential question looming over the political economy, it’s shifted to STEM as great because the graduates will make a lot of money. It doesn’t matter if the engineering graduate will just go work for Wall Street figuring out new ways to shift piles of money around while skimming off the top every time and isn’t making anything with use value. Capitalism doesn’t need to prove itself anymore so it just focuses on maximizing profit extraction.
So in this context, philosophy is devalued as it is both seen as not leading to big incomes, but also because it’s treated as asking a question that’s already been settled. It’s the liberal “End of History” mentality, if the big debate of society and political economy has been settled, then what good is philosophy except for navel gazing and intellectual parlor games?
So yeah, I think the dearth of philosophical understanding among STEM majors contributes to the lack of serious scientific progress (aside: if you want to tilt a STEMlord, point out that science is just empirical philosophy applied), but I think it’s a reflection of a general attitude that true progress isn’t necessary. Oh sure, there’s lip service to surface level social progress and having a slightly faster iPhone every two years, but not transformative progress. Liberalism doesn’t want another industrial revolution because that would be another reordering of the class structure and hierarchy.
not disagreeing with your overall point but the focus on use, and not stated but I think to some extent implicit, on making stuff is kinda the distinction between being an engineer vs a scientist. You can have the same education/skills but if you aren't planning on bringing something to production/market you would most likely describe yourself as being in research.