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)

#201

Post by ghaff » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:14 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #182

dash2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There are definitely areas of overlap with social sciences--especially these days. Behavioral economics (for which Richard Thaler won a Nobel Prize a couple years back) grew directly out of behavioral psychology for example.

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

#202

Post by mihaaly » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

slothtrop wrote: post #198

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?...)

Saying sorry in an argument is among the cheapest, most annoying rhetorical devices.

Sorry! : )

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

#203

Post by amatic » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #127

This 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…

> Shall we start psychological therapies just because someone thought it sounded good, instead of measuring if it works?

Yup. All psychotherapies were started just because someone thought they sounded good; and are still being practiced because they sound good. There are hundreds of different schools of psychotherapy today. There is a movement toward testing the effectiveness of therapies, but they just show whichever therapy the researcher fancies is the best, and metastudies reveal about equal effectiveness of all the major therapies.

The point is, I think, that quantitative measures are not lifting the scientific status of a field automatically; and can mask the lack of sound foundation.

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

#204

Post by mihaaly » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #178

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 ;).

My point is more like that it is the best not to be involved with organizations employing such evaluation practices towards their people.

Despite the technical interviews went very well I've quit the recruitment process when faced this mandatory step. I choose not to take those tests. Previous experiences show that where such mechanistic approach is in place those places are not worth working for. I tried to discuss around this kind of test, asking for reasons and proposing substitutes with more position relevant ones, but no, rigid refusal was the answer in polite wrapping. Actually they required two kinds of tests, one personality and one generic ability that included one third - ca. 6 questions - of calculating percentages and sum values quickly, in a financial context. Basically adding and multiplying numbers very quickly. Irrelevant but the results are taken into account seriously.

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

#205

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:49 PM 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).

Anthropology contains biological anthtopology and archaeology, both of which are a lot more like the physical sciences than psychology.

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

#206

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #120

selectionbias wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the latest edition of QJE. You will see mostly studies addressing a particular policy question, e.g., 'what was the effect of this policy change on unemployment' which they answer using randomly controlled trials or quasi-experimental methods. Which aspect of this falls apart when you prod it?

I was more thinking of top economists like Alan Greenspan and his comments about having banished volatility, followed shortly after by the '08 crash. Much of economics is politics disguised as technocracy.

Of course it is. Economics uses to be called political economy for a reason. The idea that economics can be considered separately from politics is laughable.

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

#207

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

burfog wrote: post #50

ojnabieoot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unthinking respect for the humanities is embarrassing. Exactly why do they deserve respect? (hint: they don't)

So, the only thing in life you enjoy is math? Because if you enjoy music or tv or novels or dance or sport or anything else, you enjoy something that doesn't deserve your respect. And why would you enjoy something like that?

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

#208

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

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)

Why is science even taught in college? All you need is a math book and YouTube to have people show you how to do the mechanical steps needed to solve problems.

(I'm sarcastic of course. Sciences and humanities are both cool and good and contribute to a better understanding of the world around us, and one wouldn't be much without the other.)

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

#209

Post by Mirioron » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

swimfar wrote: post #27

Gimpei wrote: post #8

This 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…

We can't predict how one person will react to a situation. But sometimes we can estimate, on average, how a large group of people will react. Even a lot of engineering deals with similar types of uncertainty. We build huge structures out of metal, concrete, and wood on top of soils and other geological materials, often with the assumption they they are all homogeneous with constant material properties through the str…

>We can't predict how one person will react to a situation. But sometimes we can estimate, on average, how a large group of people will react.

I think the issue here is very similar to the one in predicting the weather. The uncertainty of our models increases so quickly that we can only predict a relatively short amount of time ahead (in the case of weather it's about 1 week [0]). We can see patterns in human behavior, but the uncertainty just grows too quickly for long-term predictions. Small things that are hard to account for can make a big difference in where even large groups of people end up at.

[0] https://www.yourweather.co.uk/news/science/long-range-weathe...

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

#210

Post by patcon » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:18 PM 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…

I don't know about this Trimble outfit, but many of my friends and relationship partners have found value in similar tests like enneagrams. In my experience, they do help distill relationship dynamics into a smaller set of more understandable patterns. No, it's not rigorous hard science, but neither is most of what we might speak about with a therapist. They can be great frameworks to build on, if you trust the people you're building with.

Then again, the power dynamics when a company tried to work with you on them, I can easily imagine that as threatening. After all, my friends care about both my personal growth and our interpersonal growth -- a company mainly cares about how I can most benefit them.

Anyhow, I suppose I'm defending the class of methods (as I've experienced them), outside the context :)