It's possible to read enough STEM books to have an understanding

Those PHD students have spent years studying their field to get to where they are, and professors have spent even more. Exactly how long do you think it's going to take you to reach this level in EVERY field?

>>8125274
You could hold a conversation with them, but you sure as hell wouldn't be able to contribute much to the discussion.

>>8125274
No; you would be lucky to get through EE and ME/AE alone at a PhD level after 40 years of age

>>8125274
This is one stupid goddamn question

>>8125442
Meh, they spent years in specialisation. They probably couldn't hold any meaningful discussion with anybody in their same field but with a different specialisation. I really doubt that this is what OP meant, he want to learn the topic in a more broad way

Kys bro, like seriously, end it. Sometimes you've gotto learn to make that hard call.

>>8125274
At the bachelor's level? Sure.

Post-grad? Hell no, unless you don't sleep.

>>8125274
No fucking way.

>>8125274
I would think so, I do it.

I have had great conversation with just about every person I meet in every field you can think of, and a few you probably did even know existed.

Not sure how I got all this info stuck in my head, I just pick it up here and there and it really adds up.

I find thing overlap together once you get to certain level. Like I was talking with some ceramic engineers about glass lamination for pressure vessels, then later nuclear engineers about vitrified waste containment, then civil engineers about pipe line corrosion seals. I felt like half the conversations were the same, covering amorphous covalent structures affects on ion exchange and material migration, which I partly expected would be more in line with chemical engineers without the hard radiation considerations.

>>8125274
You sound like autism OP, but sure I'll answer your question

Answer: kind of

A lot of different stem degrees stack on top of each other and if you break it down then you're not too far from a full undergraduate education in several of them. What, you want a graduate degree level understanding of more than like 4? Not really possible unless you go back to the 40's when we had several geniuses who could excel at several subjects that hadn't been broken down yet (Tesla: mechanical/electrical engineering and physics; von Neumann: game theory, mathematics, computer engineering/science, some nuclear engineering).

Think about it this way: if you were a mathematics + physics double major, you're actually at a pretty good standpoint to learn several other things cuz you've already learned all the fundamentals.

Good luck still trying to memorize anatomy and the thousands of interactions between chemicals and molecules within biology, chemical engineering, and neuroscience.

File: 1460930632526.jpg (124KB, 482x1115px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 482x1115px

i think there's a difference between information and understanding
for instance, it's relatively easy to have an enormous mental catalogue of chemicals and chemical reactions, but that doesn't mean you can put on some goggles and go make LSD
sure, you know your way around the human liver perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're good to cut tumors out of one
et cetera

i think that it's very possible to learn enough to do what you're asking

>>8125274
Yes, it's possible. Science as a hobby is a possibility, but most people who do that are super autistic, rich enough to not need to work or both. You'll likely just get bored when you get to the dry technical parts.

You can if you become a boring person that reads scientific publications like most old people read the news. You can find most of the topics in free lectures and just need to watch them like tv or movies or youtube videos.