The myopic notion that only the language of science (mathematics) can be abstract is delusional as thinking appropriating thought is intended to solely serve its purpose. They would do better to read some Bertrand Russell or Wittgenstein. Presupposing that their (scientists) sudden revelatory constructs as discoveries of natural phenomena woven into manifest isn’t the doing of a more abstract entity at play. Language isn’t analogous to mathematics then even if not directly responsible? can math really exist as it does independently of the unknown hidden behind layers of the minds? Sure the noumena can. But what realises it into its algorithms can’t be deemed not mysterious of nature’s own rules to forge and find new realities. Here i must plug Cormac McCarthy’s essay on this as it does a better job at a profound level of deconstructing the genesis of language: The Kekule problem

If they need an abstract language to explain the natural phenomena, wouldn’t the same rules apply to the unscientific, more human needs and if it has to be distilled down to the simplest it’s meant to apply to the wider audience. And occam’s razor seems to take precedence in accommodating for the human’s need to grok at complexities. I would agree with OP’s flak on such abstrusity if they weren’t on purpose. If some a priori (few things) exists it must do so independently as anything objective can’t forever get away with remaining cryptic, but the subjective can, which then groks at it. And science needs more of it as its probability of being unintuitive to the human sensibility increases with complexity. A crude assumption i.e. rather flawed idea that there can be only one kind of abstract is privy to their own lack of seeing beyond the paradigms of maths/science, and they better believe the thought which engenders it is the same which applies to sociological ones, i don’t know enough about anything but can say that one cannot really exist without the other. But then it only goes to further exhibit the snobbery of some STEMlords by seeing them trivialise if not outright patronize those who aren’t them because they’re too far up their own buttocks to realize the world doesn’t go around them.

Scientific people love to classify/taxonomise entities into boxes. OP’s probably selfaware enough to realise a skewed lens of looking at the material world isn’t just a sole construct of scientific progress, and the paradoxical nature of reality is as confounding as their beliefs that belies the perceived world and denying it is disingenuous to onself, but all employed language can only serve this social function and it is foolish to think their idea of abstraction can apply only to say computer science. Never dealt with irrational emotion? aren’t dreams abstract? and then there is art which i don’t have to get into as it can lie orthogonal to the logic of science.

Regardless of STEM or not it is hardwork to simplify the complex without sacrificing underlying meaning and there is no reason to think it mustn’t be done if required, and i would concur if the usage in some fields is recondite to the curious and aside from science, politics and social issues the other realms don’t warrant the otherwise justified simplification as it would defeat its purpose. And just because occam’s razor exists as an anchoring tool for the three axioms of scientific method, we can’t be dissuaded to explore the more complex, it’s only serving as a principle to revert to when getting hyperbolic about a theory. The same scientific method which intends to depend on not falsifying the fact of the unknown that is applies to other things (hence cannot disapprove/refute the abstract beyond its reach). I think part of the reason of the STEM fallacy is the misunderstandings that develop between theirs and others’ fields, as well as the disingenuous valuation of breadth over depth of fields which aren’t STEM and is often inflated. If anything we realie while studying STEM that we could do better to add some breadth to our portfolio and see new doors open up.

Distilling down to the whole simplicity thing (which actually drives intuition) is a very human construct to make our theories be accepted by the wider us who haven’t the same depth as you, while we inherently exist like mandelbrot sets in a way. Not all abstractions are rewarding though: imagine if relativity never challenged newtonian mechanics? and we can grasp at straws all we want to make sense of fields which we aren’t aware of, but being insular is only hurting the scientist’s chances, and as fields become more complex the divisions too seem overwhelming to intuit out of one’s depth. We can only bridge these gaps even in science by the effective relinquishing of its barriers as they impede rather than help make progress or even open novel ones, and for every order of magnitude in depth one delves in and gains it would make sense to add one in breadth to balance the asymmetry. But which discipline doesn’t stand on the shoulders of giants?

And frankly i don’t care for the invisible borders between disciplines and sure they can provide distinction but it can come at a cost, as there is much to lose when these layers are insulated from each other. Interfacing can only work to aid the scientist than preclude, and introspection or critical thought might even be essential to one’s decision process as is when shouldering responsibility with moral, ethical implications, and driving scientific progress isn’t meant to be onedimensional to the individual or to society. If all my thought stems from only one discipline then it is a tragedy of the individual choices made until then for which only i’m to blame. Not that it (abstraction) isn’t without its perils or downsides though, and the key lies in delineating what’s merely redundant scaffolding from what is relevant to the problem at hand, and depending on one’s need it can either serve as a heuristic with which to work with (as a way to not reinvent the wheel) or as a complication which is superfluous to the potential solution. Although sometimes reinventing the wheel is the only way to go since it rejects the abstractions it has had to reckon with and opts to rethink the fundamental axioms retaining only the bare grammar of logic.

Language we begin with informs one of the primary abstractions we learn early on. All those inexplicable sensations we feel along with any other emotion, desire or lesser gauche ones. Accusations such as that is merely perpetuating the scientism rife in such domains of knowledge and a parochial ideology. I didn’t think it would be wise to elaborate further there, hence am restorting to this. It would be awful reductive of someone to pigeonhole themselves into a onedimensional projection of a rather manifold concept. Although I did read the OP’s essay: People are bad at defining things and they would perhaps agree, but this is more for the broader stemmers, regardless of STEM or not it is hardwork to simplify the complex and there is no reason to think it mustn’t be done, and i would concur with the taciturn usage in some social sciences, and aside from science, politics and social issues the other realms of abstract don’t warrant the justified simplification as it would probably defeat its intended purpose.

Language then is an intrinsic abstraction of thought or subconscious implicit to the individual/being. Using it in right times, when it comes to the programmer/computer scientist is upto their decision making, and is okay to be wary of since abstractions are only as good as the facts obey the rules, and once some disorder gets introduced into the system, the dissonance between the engineer and the behaviour at play begins to shift, as the facts begin to defy the logic expected of the proposed solutions. This isn’t just about the divisions between STEM and humanities, but then nor is it ever becoming less separated, which is unfortunate yet with increased expansion of depth and need for distinction they exist, but they do as mere classification but one tries to avoid its compartmentalization whether it be in praxis or in the individual’s own mind (as hard as it can be), as it doesn’t mean they cannot be together at all.

Divisions can only discourage and hence alienate/isolate even curious minds from interpolating between the varied skillsets. Whereas in fact the more elision we can interface between these varied disciplines the better it is for the all encompassing desire of humankind and thus beholden to multidimensional joys. Collaboration and coalition would be the healthier way forward that seeks to engage, and work through the myriad issues that come up. It matters also that STEM research isn’t delusional about its ability (more of a vulnerability) to get thrusted into positions of responsibility which requires critical thought in not always scientific terms. Oppenhemier would be an example of victim of that with devastating results. And the onus is on the scientists if not more than the lawmakers or policymakers who can make us feel safe and good in a world being infiltrated by reckless politicians and businesspeople, where we are empowered collectively to work for the present and a better future.

And the way we navigate the world is with the use of such abstractions, we abstract away the complex stuff so we may live easy simple lives without thinking much of the complexities involved for the things we don’t need to worry about. Everything might be an abstraction then. Even those involuntary actions, movements and reactions we are involved in unwittingly, have their own mathematical algorithms and calculus apparatus behind them, and of course not everything needs our attention in that regard. Truth is, everything simple we see around us can be incredibly complex processes, and everything simple is indeed complex underneath the hood. We breathe, but if we knew the number of processes (chemical reactions) which underlie it we’d probably just stop breathing, atleast for a few moments.

Wracking a hard problem in our brain, for hours, days and years, how many times has the solution been given to us, comes to us rather than us solving or discovering it on our own? We never could explain away such a mysterious epiphany or two as that of arriving at solutions, offered unsolicited to our exhausted mind, that it goes on calculating even after we’ve resigned ourselves to rest, that it somehow in that leisure interval is able to come up with novel answers, and solutions to those problems are then delivered, things we couldn’t ourselves manage to do because the conscious mind is plagued with urgent necessities and is bound to exist in a noisy world whose environment isn’t always conducive to its potential caliber or envisioned goals, and in our little excursion there in between having to work and attend to duties it is able to do better than thought was possible. Suffice to say, we’re mere actors or pawns of the subconscious progenitor whom we hardly know of yet would love to know better.

But it isn’t that all of the hardwork we put in before and during that phase of getting there is ever naught, probably it has indeed more so to do with the process driving the innate subconscious into jumping into action involuntarily, and the hours spent wrestling is food for thought. Until we try and get there we’ll never know, right?