Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012) • Hacker News Board

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#171

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 9:40 AM UTC

kebman wrote: post #88

crazygringo wrote: post #44

This is a terrible article. First of all, the introduction which bashes the paper which applying social network techniques to fiction? If the author had bothered to look it up, they would have realized the authors are an applied mathematician and theoretical physicist. Not humanities . Then they goes on to criticize political science and psychology as their poster children for the humanities, except these are social…

Hi, there. I've studied Political Science, Film "Science" and IT. And Pedagogy. Why do I say Film "Science"? Because I had to use refuted "science" to analyze films, among other things (Freudian Analysis, which was of course groundbreaking at the time, but that does not hold up to modern scientific standards anymore). The professor said to me that, "Yes, I understand you when you say that this isn't stricly 'science,…

Ironically this thread - and the OP - is a superb example of why everyone should study narrative techniques so they can understand the kinds of categories that common arguments and positions fall into.

You can learn a huge amount from ad hoc observational models of behaviour that aren't based on equations or statistics. You can even use them to make accurate predictions.

I used to know a manager who had an outstanding intuitive understanding of organisational and personal psychology. He probably couldn't have formalised his knowledge, but he had a real talent for getting shit done with individuals and groups, and for knowing exactly the right moment to apply leverage in a negotiation - all without bullying, shouting, or underhanded manipulation.

He simply knew exactly what people would do in one set of circumstances, and how to change their preferences by presenting them with alternative circumstances.

This isn't "science" in a formal sense, but it's certainly a very real form of knowledge. It seems to me STEM types tend not to understand how valuable and effective it can be, and how important it is to have some of this skill if you want to change what people do.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#172

Post by catalogia » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:04 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #163

lopmotr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? It's selective breeding for humans the same as we do for farm animals and cats and dogs. It's not pseudoscientific.

No - it's pseudo moral. It's reviled because proponents are reliably racist idiots who don't even understand the limits of the science - or why breeding humans like farm animals really isn't such a great idea.

The GP didn't seem to claim it was moral. Making nerve gas isn't moral either, but that has nothing to do with whether making nerve gas is pseudochemistry.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#173

Post by dntbnmpls » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:17 AM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #113

dntbnmpls wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have anything to back this up? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_social_sciences "The term "social science" first appeared in the 1824 book An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness; applied to the Newly Proposed System of Voluntary Equality of Wealth by William Thompson (1775–1833). Auguste Comte (1797–1857) argued that ideas pass through…

The article on Wikipedia doesn't support your assertion that the scholars who coined the term "social science" did so "fairly recently," and that they were "sneaky academics" and "hacks." Well, unless 1824 is "fairly recently" (to be generous, let's say a century ago, when things really got going), and Comte, Durkheim, Weber, and yes, even Marx are "hacks" (they may be other things, but hacks?).

> The article on Wikipedia doesn't support your assertion that the scholars who coined the term "social science" did so "fairly recently,"

Fairly recently is subjective. But the article showed that they coined it because of the cachet attached to science at that time.

You can downvote and find things to nitpick, but ultimately I'm right. Just like creation "science". Political "science" is as much a science as creation "science". That isn't to say political "science" is nonsense like creation "science". It's an academic field that belongs in the "arts and humanities" category.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#174

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:26 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #119

rdcurd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most, if not all self-respecting social science scholars would resent being lumped in with economists

Which fields are you referring to? I think of psychology as perhaps more rigorous, but none of the others (sociology, anthropology, political science).

[deleted]

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#175

Post by timwaagh » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:54 AM UTC

On the one hand I completely agree that a lot of scientists across disciplines have too much confidence in the predictions of their models of complex systems. For example climate models predicting not only how much global temperature will rise but also on the local level, which seems far harder to predict. And the amount of studies that do not survive a replication attempt. But I don't believe that we can justify wasting tax money on people who don't try to back up their claims and instead just make up hypothesis after hypothesis, maybe based on a patient they knew, debating and sipping wine with their fellow intellectuals, prescribing morality under the guise of science and just laughing at us plebs. If you want to do that, become a writer or YouTuber, but not a scientist of any kind. If you're going to be a scientist at the very least try to back everything up with statistics. I know, It's work, it's not fun and it might not mean very much but you owe it to society to dig in and crunch those numbers.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#176

Post by dekervin » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:55 AM UTC

ojnabieoot wrote: post #15

everyone wrote: post #2

Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)

Because music, history, and literature are just as important to human society as math, computer science, and physics. This unthinking disrespect for the humanities is embarrassing.

Embarassing is an understatement. It is one of those cases where people don't know what they don't know ( unknown unknowns ).

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#177

Post by mihaaly » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:57 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #167

mihaaly wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the measurement is flawed you will not know if the therapy works. Sorry. And the measurement is flawed! Actually, there is a crisis of reliability concerning modern research papers. (probably this is the source that many try to build castle out of dough?...)

Flawed is not completely useless. Even a flawed p-hacked measurement can distinguish between big effects efficiently. Plus even if all the previous measurements were totally useless, that doesn't mean we should just give up and stop trying to measure soft stuff. No, it's quite the opposite. Instead of many small underpowered experiments and studies we should be spending on fewer but well designed and run larger ones.…

Systematically flawed input will produce flawed results. Whatever the kind of the input is, be it measurement or else.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#178

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 10:59 AM UTC

mihaaly wrote: post #165

The story reminds me of the HR practices of 'measuring' personality based on questionnaire to judge the competence of people for certain positions and determine their carrier path inside the organization (e.g. at Trimble). Imagine you are a software engineer applying for an engineering role and they ask you a hundred or more questions to compare the importance of aspects such as punctuality, trust, being patient, law…

If you ever need to take such a test, get yourself in the mindset of "I am a loyal, hard working person", and good results will flow from that one. Just think what kind of employee a company wants to have.

It's easier to fill it out on a test than actually be hard working for a couple of years, so the test is the easy part ;).

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#179

Post by engineeringwoke » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

nurettin wrote: post #124

Articles and generally ideas like this always seem too dismissive. CPUs are nothing like brains because: intricacies. Algorithms can't be applied to literature because: intricacies. It is almost an appeal to emotions to say that rather than saying "ok well we tried to apply these electric constructs and algorithms in order to understand ideas and literature better, we got nowhere and here's exactly why", they are lik…

This is a repetitive concept in modern society, just look at astronomy 100 years ago. People want their science to be more science than it is. If you build your models on faulty foundations, they don't mean anything. Many psychology studies use American college students, as if you can build a model of society in an international context with such a specific subset of people. This is valid criticism.

Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)

#180

Post by nemo44x » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

rnikander wrote: post #77

Some people submitted nonsense papers (for example: rape culture at dog parks, and an excerpt from Mein Kampf), and they were accepted for publication. https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publish...

They have a book coming out soon titled “Cynical Race Theory” which is a critique of the 40 years of academic thought that has gone from fringe to mainstream (And applied like the Inquisition mashed up with Maoist techniques like Struggle Sessions) and we are seeing played out unwittingly by the media, tech companies, and the tokenizing social media chatter class.