Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
1–10 of 237 posts
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#2Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#3I would prefer a university structure where B.S. + M.S. is earned in four years by focusing on core major requirements to then have humanities courses offered at no cost via the alumni association as part of continuing education throughout one's twenties.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#4The article is talking, essentially, to the humanities. But the point applies to those of us on the outside as well. We as well need to stop expecting the humanities to be science.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#5This reminds me a little bit of the push to add “art” to STEM schools.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#6Provocative title. The author argues - more or less - that quantitative and mathematical approaches do not lend themselves to questions of the humanities or social sciences.
As an example they take a network analysis that was done on social relations of characters of fictional works. While the author finds this use dubious, I think it's the contrary. While the researchers might not fully understand the methods, they could very well have a mathematician on hand. What do we do in math if not model real problems of real people?
It might be nice for some people to not know an application of their research but for humanities to find novel ways in which to use mathematical tools is great and should be encouraged. Of course they will miss but they will also hit. We need a peer review where those methods are understood within the humanities and social sciences, in order to not draw false conclusions.
Of course, qualitative analysis isn't going the way of the dodo and the author agrees on that.
I just think the occasional misuse of mathematical models for humanities research is well worth the possible gain. Those problems should follow some rules with a mathematical models, right??? Let's help those researchers instead of banishing them to qualitative methods.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#7Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)
Because not everybody wants to be in STEM. And because even those who are in STEM need to know that humanity does not live by STEM alone. (We'd like our STEM to treat people like humans, rather than like machines.)
A "liberal education" originally meant that those who pursued it were free. They weren't pursuing an education of mere techniques, which was for slaves. Even today, there is a place for learning things that don't have a direct economic impact, as part of becoming an educated person.
That's from the more idealistic side of me. Now here comes the cynicism. Why? Because people still want to major in them, so that they can say that they have a college degree without having to major in something rigorour. And those people pay tuition. And the colleges like getting paid.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#8This conflates social science with the humanities. I agree with respect to the humanities. Less so with respect to social science. People in large groups do in general follow certain trends and we do have decent ways of establishing causation. Now there is a lot of stuff that people do that we can't analyze quantitatively due to lack of data or other blockers. For these qualitative methods will have to do. Fine, but then we should accept that the conclusions from qualitative analysis are less firm and judge them accordingly.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#9Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)
Because not everybody wants to be in STEM. And because even those who are in STEM need to know that humanity does not live by STEM alone. (We'd like our STEM to treat people like humans, rather than like machines.) A "liberal education" originally meant that those who pursued it were free. They weren't pursuing an education of mere techniques, which was for slaves. Even today, there is a place for learning things tha…
Apparently the natural sciences were once grouped into liberal arts as well
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#10Say i agree with the sentiment expressed here, what does the curriculum of a neo-classical humanities look like. Let's presume you'd want to keep the good stuff, things like Arrow's impossibilities theorem, Bayesian statistics, Network theory, Language pragmatics, ect. You know the sort of stuff that might aid the organisation of complex systems without repeating the mistakes of the past.
Maybe it is unfair to judge the hole field on a silly paper, in all fairness they write about non existing geometries in physics