Oo thank you for replying! I love talking. I'd like to clarify my thoughts a little bit.

Saying that across every nation, and every period of history, every possible kind of human thinking would lead to the same results and discoveries is a bizzare statement.

I didn't mean to imply that all possible theories and models in regards to any particular phenomena are a foregone conclusion, just that the right theory is a foregone conclusion, and of course it can be arrived at in many different ways. I don't want to get too philosophical so I'm operating under the assumption that the natural world exists in only one way, and isn't some kind of crazy paradox or something. If that's true, then the nature of the things around us can only be discovered, and not invented.

In regards to your second criticism, I'm afraid I have to stand by this one too :( It seems rather unfair to remove my qualifier. I maintain that the practical purpose of STEM is indeed to improve the quality/efficiency/length of our lives so that we can better pursue the things we enjoy. I would never claim that STEM doesn't have inherent intellectual/personal value! It definitely does.

Many people do read books on Math or science for entertainment purpose.

No arguments here! I think it's neat that people are able to find this niche for themselves.

I want to say that I never intended to put STEM down. It's immensely valuable to us (after all, someone engineered my car, designed my roads, and timed my stoplights so that I can get home faster to sew while I listen to podcasts) and I'm incredibly grateful to have it. I just think that STEM has a horde of defenders on Reddit, so I wanted to champion the arts. The fact that they don't have an immediately obvious positive impact on our lives doesn't mean that they aren't equally important.