Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fuck Nuance [pdf]

kieranhealy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#61

Post by emodendroket »

Alex3917 wrote: post #25
twoodfin wrote: post #4

I realized as I was reading this that I know very little about sociology as a discipline. In particular, I'm unaware of any of its "Great Theories", a la General Relativity for physics, or Darwinian Evolution for biology. Any candidates? I'm not trying to be snide, I really would like to learn more about this. The Wikipedia page for sociology describes "theories" that sound more like schools of thought.

> I realized as I was reading this that I know very little about sociology as a discipline. ...You wrote in a text field on a website with other readers who will be able to upvote or downvote your comment. Sociology tends to have less of an emphasis on theory than some other fields, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of research that's useful and relevant.

You want to know more about physics? You wrote that while sitting at a desk from which things will fall if you drop them off.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#62

Post by julie1 »

unabst wrote: post #31

I call this the "abstraction paradox". There is no way that an abstraction can fully equate what it abstracts. "Apple" could never equal a real apple. But abstraction allows us to think about real apples. In science, all theories and models are abstractions. Hence, they are always approximations, and can be invalidated or nullified with edge cases that can indeed be backed by evidence. But the opposite is also true.…

Well, science has not your "abstraction paradox".

Science uses a notion called domain of validity for their abstraction. Domain of validity gives conditions for which there is actually no ambiguity.

There are domains where science knows it knows nothing. It is called transitions.

In science you take more time learning these "domain of validity" than the actual laws. In fact, you have to learn to calculate them by yourself.

When Einstein's relativity apply? When you go to fast.

When is a photon behaving like a corpuscule ? When you try to count them. When does photon behave like a wave? When you try to measure the interferences.

When does deterministic laws fails? When you have to much independent entities, then you use statistical physics. According to the possibility for entities to share the same energy level you then choose your distribution to integrate all the states...

Science is not about knowing formula, it is about knowing when you can apply them.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#63

Post by Alex3917 »

emodendroket wrote: post #61
Alex3917 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I realized as I was reading this that I know very little about sociology as a discipline. ...You wrote in a text field on a website with other readers who will be able to upvote or downvote your comment. Sociology tends to have less of an emphasis on theory than some other fields, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of research that's useful and relevant.

You want to know more about physics? You wrote that while sitting at a desk from which things will fall if you drop them off.

My point was that there is a ton of research relevant to each component of that interaction... E.g. how text affects us emotionally, how peer feedback impacts motivation, the properties of synchronous vs asychronous communication, etc.

I was merely trying to evoke "the sociological imagination".

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#64

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danharaj wrote: post #60
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Otherwise, frankly, academics arguing over what has no consequence will have no consequence outside the circles of those who argue over it. Sociology is mostly a series of status games played by academics. It's part of the humanities, which means the methods of play are peer group signalling and persuasive story-telling, not reality testing. It's not engineering, where models actually have to predict reality with at…

Your entire post is a series of sociological assertions about academics and engineers without scientific evidence. I'm sure the irony was intentional.

That entire post can be reduced to two core assertions:

1) Details matter in engineering because products will actually be manufactured according to those details and if the details are wrong then planes would fall out of the sky. (Which we know they rarely do.)

2) Details don't matter in social theory because practitioners don't use academic theories to make policy. The theories can't be tested because they aren't used. Most social science "theories" are therefore a hypothesis without an experiment.

The only statement about people or social behavior is that engineers put their theories into practice with more frequency and rigor than sociologists, which is empirically true.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#65

Post by emodendroket »

Alex3917 wrote: post #63
emodendroket wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to know more about physics? You wrote that while sitting at a desk from which things will fall if you drop them off.

My point was that there is a ton of research relevant to each component of that interaction... E.g. how text affects us emotionally, how peer feedback impacts motivation, the properties of synchronous vs asychronous communication, etc. I was merely trying to evoke "the sociological imagination".

Well, I'm sure there is, but it doesn't really give him any idea how to find it.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#66

Post by unabst »

julie1 wrote: post #62
unabst wrote: post #31

I call this the "abstraction paradox". There is no way that an abstraction can fully equate what it abstracts. "Apple" could never equal a real apple. But abstraction allows us to think about real apples. In science, all theories and models are abstractions. Hence, they are always approximations, and can be invalidated or nullified with edge cases that can indeed be backed by evidence. But the opposite is also true.…

Well, science has not your "abstraction paradox". Science uses a notion called domain of validity for their abstraction. Domain of validity gives conditions for which there is actually no ambiguity. There are domains where science knows it knows nothing. It is called transitions. In science you take more time learning these "domain of validity" than the actual laws. In fact, you have to learn to calculate them by you…

The abstraction paradox is with regard to any abstraction. Theories are abstractions. But science is not just theories. It's application as you say. Arguments should be over accuracy and application. To simply prove a theory wrong is redundant because it will always be possible. It's what can be referred to as a "dick move".

Your tone was misleading, but everything you said backs the theory. I must thank you.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#67

Post by nickpsecurity »

p4wnc6 wrote: post #11
twoodfin wrote: post #4

I realized as I was reading this that I know very little about sociology as a discipline. In particular, I'm unaware of any of its "Great Theories", a la General Relativity for physics, or Darwinian Evolution for biology. Any candidates? I'm not trying to be snide, I really would like to learn more about this. The Wikipedia page for sociology describes "theories" that sound more like schools of thought.

I would posit the social signalling theories of Robin Hanson as perhaps a theory of this magnitude. The problem is, though most of Hanson's theories have plausible explanations and "feel" right, there is very little experimental evidence and very few studies are directed in that area. In fact, you might even say it is a symptom of that type of signalling itself: as homo-hypocritus, we don't want signalling theories t…

Great comment. I'm saving it for when I look this stuff up. :)

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#68

Post by unabst »

raverbashing wrote: post #54
unabst wrote: post #31

I call this the "abstraction paradox". There is no way that an abstraction can fully equate what it abstracts. "Apple" could never equal a real apple. But abstraction allows us to think about real apples. In science, all theories and models are abstractions. Hence, they are always approximations, and can be invalidated or nullified with edge cases that can indeed be backed by evidence. But the opposite is also true.…

I see this problem as such: sciences beyond physics have phenomenon dependent on many more variables, many of which are unknown On Physics, beyond the obvious, the rest can be derided as noise (you won't have an exact measure of anything, sometimes this is a new phenomenon yet to be discovered, or something known but overlooked in this situation, but usually "noise") Now when you depend on more variables, your first…

This. It's absolutely about overfitting/underfitting. Just as our eyes see a lot more but can only focus on one thing, abstractions are just that. They focus on specific things. But the problem with the physical reality is that it does not end, and everything is connected. Every time we make an abstraction we are severing the subject from it's surroundings which physically are inseparable. They are only theoretically separable. Hence scientific research begins with closing an otherwise open system.

Even when we weigh an apple, it's weight is influenced by the gravitational pull of the sun and everything else. Hence what matters depends on application. If you're buying apples by weight, we can safely exclude these influences as inconsequential to the price of your apples. Good enough is what is fitting, and they make good abstractions and good science.

It's easy to lose track of utility in social sciences, because history only happens once, and theories often appear to have no predicting power or future use. But if anything, social sciences provide us with introspection. It tells us who we are and how we've been. If you already practice this on a personal level, then you already know how valuable this is at any scale. If not, you should begin to practice it on yourself first, because the value of things is most easily admired through experience.

Re: Fuck Nuance [pdf]

#69

Post by julie1 »

unabst wrote: post #66
julie1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, science has not your "abstraction paradox". Science uses a notion called domain of validity for their abstraction. Domain of validity gives conditions for which there is actually no ambiguity. There are domains where science knows it knows nothing. It is called transitions. In science you take more time learning these "domain of validity" than the actual laws. In fact, you have to learn to calculate them by you…

The abstraction paradox is with regard to any abstraction. Theories are abstractions. But science is not just theories. It's application as you say. Arguments should be over accuracy and application. To simply prove a theory wrong is redundant because it will always be possible. It's what can be referred to as a "dick move". Your tone was misleading, but everything you said backs the theory. I must thank you.

    A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.
    — Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity (1933, p. 58)
Post reply on HN