In doing so they have either purposefully or inadvertently, devalued the social sciences and the creative arts.

Devaluing social sciences leads to serious issues for students, families, communities and nations.

Devoid of the capacity to think both critically and holistically, education and decision-making becomes compartmentalised.

The study of STEM subjects can place higher emphasis on the tools and the products of tools, rather than the thinking processes and implications of decisions.

In this regard learning STEM subjects can be limiting.

STEM subjects essentially involve studies about the uses of tools and could be characterised as study of instruments.

These tools for understanding can be used to solve problems and to create novel solutions.

However, in order to do so for the benefit of humanity, they need a strong understanding of the lessons brought by a study of social sciences.

They need bureaucrats, teachers and other decision-makers to at least understand history, power, social cohesion, responsibility and humanity.

To illustrate this, consider the following:

Science with technology and mathematics engineered the atom bomb ... but politics and diplomacy dropped it.

The decision-makers used what studies of STEM enabled to kill hundreds of thousands of people in an instant. Where was the critical thinking in this critical incident?

Or ask this:

Of what use is the development of environmentally sustainable energy production when some governments refuse to subsidise it?

Science and technology provide a novel solution to the climate change problem, however, those who decide how resources are used in the pursuit of scientific breakthroughs can make decisions that negatively impact on communities, nations and the indeed the world.

Moreover, currently there is an expansion of scientific frontiers without the infusion of caution informed by the worst misuses of power.

Recent developments in global politics are alarming many social sciences educators.

Social science educators may ask, "Of what use are hypersonic missiles in space when we cannot protect children from technologies designed to encourage misogyny, racism, anger, hatred and the amplifying of ‘alternative truths’ and ‘alternative facts?” or, “Why aim to create a biosphere on Mars when we cannot keep our seas free of plastics?”

Consider these contemporary social phenomena.

Engineers design large-scale infrastructure, commissioned by huge corporations. The bridges, tunnels and highways linking here and there often built through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).

The commercial imperative that funds large-scale projects is paid for by decades of inflation-indexed tolls. This creates a new impasse: the increased social divide between those who can afford to use such infrastructure and those who cannot.

And what about this commercial reality: mathematics helps banks quantify their profits.

The banks leverage the financial power this brings. This power is misapplied when the banks refuse to help vulnerable people affected by financial scams that they currently enable.

Instead of assisting those they have been complicit in the defrauding, banks use the media to tell the community that they have secure systems.

In Australia the banks assure us that they are more scam-resistant than anywhere else globally, whilst presiding over scam-losses higher per head of population than the USA or UK.

Securing profits appears to take priority over giving security to those most disaffected.

Bank CEOs, experts at calculating the financial bottom line, could study the social sciences to understand how unrestrained corporate greed engenders social discord and distrust in institutions.

Instead of a self-congratulatory night sleeping under the stars, bank CEOs could allow themselves to be scammed and test their institution's restorative processes.

This insight might provide greater empathy to the financial sector in designing processes to prevent fraud.

Here a study of social sciences might assist managers to balance mathematical knowledge with deep understanding about the social contract institutions have with citizens.

Investigation processes

Science experimental processes use theoretical models to predict, observe and then explain.

Such reductionist thinking is fine for understanding causation. An example would be predicting the effects of burning fossil fuels, observing climate change and explaining how global warming is causing worsening natural (human-induced) disasters - such as those seen recently with the Los Angeles bushfires and experienced in Australia as record floods, record heat and less predictable weather patterns.

The social sciences have an alternative approach: observe human behaviours and processes, explain in an attempt to understand what motivates and shapes people, and then predict what would happen in other situations.

Applying a social sciences approach to managing contemporary challenges would mean that greater precaution would be taken.

Precaution as a balance

Educators who understand the importance of learning from history and observing human nature may decide that education around precaution rather than speculation is a wiser approach than the present focus on STEM.

A concentrated focus on the social sciences would help to balance the current situation.

Shifting geopolitics requires deep inquiry. Educators could ask, “What do political leaders, and their advisers do and why? What are the long-term implications on ordinary people and communities of the decisions they make?"

I say we should focus more on critical thinking informed by a deeper study of social sciences than STEM subjects.