(2012)
+1 @dang
Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
181–190 of 237 posts
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a half-decent study in social sciences that draws rigorous conclusions: what I have seen is those studies noticing a correlation and then mainstream media picking it up as de facto conclusions (to put out a simplest example we've all seen: "people who have more sex are happier", directly implying that having sex leads to happiness, whereas studies noticed a correlation between people who claim to be h…
> I've never seen a half-decent study in social sciences that draws rigorous conclusions. Perhaps you should look harder. The dominant approach in economics for 20 years has been to reject correlational studies and try very hard to get at casuality, by: * Running randomised controlled trials, often at scale (see eg Esther Duflo); * Laboratory experiments, which have provided a body of robust paradigms and results; *…
Economics is not really something people think of when they talk about humanities or social sciences.
Indeed, in Econ grad school I learned a lot about control theory, statistics, dynamic programming, etc. But I was never told to read Foucault, Levi-Strauss or even Marx - something that sociologists and other people in humanities usually have at least a basic understanding of.
If we judge what is science by level of quantitative rig our then economics is the only social science.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#183This is such a horrible article. Many have already mentioned the conflation of humanities and social sciences. Then by using the example of books (because most would agree books would loose their essence if we just describe them by numbers) it constructs a straw man that somehow we loose something (the beauty?) by using quantitative measures. Sure many studies have flaws (not just in the social sciences), but what is…
> conflation of humanities and social sciences. You've missed the entire point. A sort of conflation is the problem - not by the author, but by people in and around soft sciences and humanities throwing a bit of statistical jazz into their papers and then drawing ostensibly rigorous conclusions which influence social policy. The reality is that by their vary nature, both soft science and humanities (there is a lot of…
That reminds me of a quote from Kurt Tucholsky: “Sociology was invented so people could write without experience”. A crisp way to summarize your point. Although I don't think that sociology can't be better than that.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#184This is such a horrible article. Many have already mentioned the conflation of humanities and social sciences. Then by using the example of books (because most would agree books would loose their essence if we just describe them by numbers) it constructs a straw man that somehow we loose something (the beauty?) by using quantitative measures. Sure many studies have flaws (not just in the social sciences), but what is…
Totally agree with you.
Given the title I expected to find an interesting article on what can go wrong if we overly rely on quantitative methods in the humanities. But this article doesn't distinguish between badly-applied quantitative methods and where the limits of those methods are even if they are executed well.
For example:
> We look at instances where the effect exists and posit a cause—and forget all the times the exact same cause led to no visible effect, or to an effect that was altogether different
This just sounds to me like bad quantitative modelling.
There is a huge argument to be made for qualitative research, and there is much-needed criticism of the idea that "hard" methods are more valuable than "soft" methods. I think this article manages neither.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#185Humanities may not be a science, but being human sure is empirical.
Experience is all we have.
At the bottom of all of these bouts is then “demarcation problem”. What is a science, what isn’t a science?
I prefer Paul Fayerabend’s view: if it is useful To somebody somewhere - it is a science.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#186The 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…
Yes, great point. A space engineer can feel super inadequate when it comes to systems thinking (since she/he is surrounded by geniuses) but a smart barista can feel like a 5 on the 1 to 5 scale. (Of course the barista might be better than the space engineer, but you get my point).
I've been called in to an extra meeting with my future employers because my answers on one of those. I mean, I'm pretty analytical (I'm doing my PhD in engineering this fall) however I didn't give myself top score on that (and a lot other metrics) as I know people who are a lot more analytical etc than me. After working in that company for a few years (and quit) I realize I should have maxed out on many of those metrics, but all in all its so much bias involved in those questionnaires - and I don't think the people working them are realizing that. At least most of them don't.
And that is without going into the skewing of these questions. Yes I can be motivated to do a good job without answering like this job is the most important task in my life behind breathing and in front of eating.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#187I think anything can be a subject to scientific study. Methods are what is essential for a study being scientific, not the subject.
Can mathematics be a subject of scientific study? Should axioms and proofs be replaced by empirical evidence?
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#188The 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…
Yes, great point. A space engineer can feel super inadequate when it comes to systems thinking (since she/he is surrounded by geniuses) but a smart barista can feel like a 5 on the 1 to 5 scale. (Of course the barista might be better than the space engineer, but you get my point). I've been called in to an extra meeting with my future employers because my answers on one of those. I mean, I'm pretty analytical (I'm do…
>After working in that company for a few years (and quit) I realize I should have maxed out on many of those metrics
And then this gets used to assign you a low self-confidence score, which leads to your trustworthiness score decreasing!
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#189Economics-hating HN is the most fascinating HN.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#190Articles 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…
Can't upvote enough. It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand and wreck-less to assume you do. It's attitudes like these articles that led Planck to say, "Science progresses one funeral at a time"
If learning, math or otherwise, doesn't destroy your ego, you can do better. There is no shame in vocalizing uncertainty or a feeling of not understanding. Look at Stephen Hawkings - he had the courage to admit he was wrong and was one of his best critics.
Ego has no place in progress - scientific or otherwise.