The further annals of the humanities vs science fight

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The further annals of the humanities vs science fight

Thought I'd share this with you:

The comments section of this blog post devolves into yet another "science is harder than history/sociology/writing" "no it's not!" fight.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.00:23, 19 February 2012

Let me just strap a soft pillow to my forehead and grab some popcorn.

Scarlet A.pngmoral01:15, 19 February 2012

I'm impressed, it took me until I scrolled 55% the way down the page to see the word "Hitler".

Scarlet A.pngsshole01:23, 19 February 2012

Didn't read the whole thing, but it seemed fairly sensible to me. Social sciences and humanities are not in principle easier, but are generally graded more leniently. Maybe if they were held to the same standards, there would be less bullshit being cranked out by social science departments.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:30, 19 February 2012

There might be something of a "there is no wrong answer" culture in social sciences, perhaps. I did once see someone say Philosophy was superior because it craved disagreement, and the entire aim of Philosophy was to come up with clever ways to disagree with people, while science demanded everyone to agree and allowed no dissent. They kind of missed the point, I think.

Scarlet A.pngbomination17:35, 19 February 2012

Philosophy != social science. One of the biggest problems is not a culture, but a cult -- The Cult of the P-Value.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:35, 19 February 2012

Ah of course!

In reality I find that there are some blurred lines between "science", "social science" and "humanities" and "arts" in practice.

Scarlet A.pngbomination18:42, 19 February 2012

Add marketing (e.g., political neuroscience) and bullshit (synonymous, but necessary) to that list as well.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:59, 19 February 2012