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

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

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 237 posts

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

#61

Post by dntbnmpls »

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…

> Then they goes on to criticize political science and psychology as their poster children for the humanities, except these are social sciences

Social sciences are a humanities. The term social science was invented fairly recently by sneaky academics to leech off the credibility of actual science.

> It's like the author isn't even familiar with academia.

Are you? This issue with "social science" has been going on for a few decades now.

Richard Feymann called social science a pseudoscience a few decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

The name social science was invented for the same reason creation science was invented because real science had such a good reputation and they didn't so they decided to manufacture some credibility by attaching "science" to their fields.

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

#62

Post by paulcole »

BeetleB wrote: post #58
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #20

If you can do a double-blind controlled study, it's a science.

> If you can do a double-blind controlled study, it's a science. You've just disqualified much of physics research today :-)

They didn’t say that if you can’t do a double-blind controlled study, it’s not a science.

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

#63

Post by enterabdazer »

waheoo wrote: post #18
qntty wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny because I actually think that the opposite would be nice. You never know what technical knowledge you'll end up needing, so it would be nice to have technical education integrated with work throughout the first several years of working. But everyone can benefit from having a broad education in liberal arts and sciences.

Youre forgetting that study is optional and most of us have little to no interest in liberal arts and sciences.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23436342

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23436077

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23436085

Do we need fancier widgets or people with the capacity for and appreciation of human development?

Is the world suffering from a lack of scientific progress or a lack of sophistication in human problems?

Do more people suffer from depression or insufficient software quality?

Do you think that the people who develop software could benefit from exposure to wider philosophical thought or from a better IDE?

Outside of technology, are we better, more capable human beings than we were 100 years ago?

It's alarming that many STEM-natives think the wider human experience isn't worthwhile. It's a prerequisite for progress.

Technology is just tools, and tools are means to an end. What's the end we're shooting for? That's the humanities.

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

#64

Post by wussboy »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #21
maweki wrote: post #6

Provocative 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…

If you reduce the humanities to what is quantifiable, you kill them. (You also kill humanity.) [Edit: After re-reading, I'm not sure the parent thinks that numbers should take over the humanities, so my comment may be misdirected. I'm leaving it anyway, because I think the point is valid, even if it doesn't address the parent's point.]

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

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

#65

Post by jccalhoun »

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…

totally agree. And then it even brings out the good old "tax payer money" line and asks if it is useful. As if we should only pursue that which seems instantly useful.

More frustrating is that there is some valid criticism of "digital humanities" for being the cool new discipline that while capable of some great stuff is guilty of all too often neglecting the "humanities" part of the term in favor of just throwing up some graphs.

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

#66

Post by bosswipe »

MagnumPIG wrote: post #59
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…

So just STEM bros talking about humanities without understanding them? Must be a Friday.

The article is written by a woman. Though I'm not sure if women can be considered bros under the common derogatory use of the term.

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

#67

Post by mhh__ »

mmhsieh wrote: post #14

One of the most valuable courses I took as an undergrad was an anthropology course. In it, we studied the life of JR Oppenheimer and his relationship with the government patrons of his science. The sort of scoundrels naturally attracted to power will always find cynical use for talent of the kind possessed by Oppenheimer. However, every aspect of such a relationship will be thoroughly cynical. If you are a future STE…

You aren't wrong but in the case of Oppenheimer - If we don't build this bomb what happens if the German's build one and when the soviets definitely get their hands on one?

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

#68

Post by jccalhoun »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #61
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…

> Then they goes on to criticize political science and psychology as their poster children for the humanities, except these are social sciences Social sciences are a humanities. The term social science was invented fairly recently by sneaky academics to leech off the credibility of actual science. > It's like the author isn't even familiar with academia. Are you? This issue with "social science" has been going on for…

As someone who did my graduate work in humanities and not social science, I think there is a world of difference between social science and humanities. There might be some valid criticism of the term "social science" and the field but lumping it in with humanities isn't accurate. While there are tons of people who use mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative work tend to be very different in focus and even how they are written.

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

#70

Post by mhh__ »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28
tengbretson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this too! I've seen schools describing their curriculum as STEAM, and all I could think was "Isn't that just normal school, but without history?"

If you're drunk, you can get history, too. Because then you slur your words, and it comes out SHTEAM.

Or Sean Connery
Post reply on HN