next »

[J. Romaine, St. Anselm College]

After reading every message in this discussion, I can't help feeling that those who take up the cudgels on behalf of "real" science are more guilty of broad generalizations, unsubstantiated by anything other than the thinnest anecdotal evidence, than their wimpy social scientific opponents.  However, as a social scientist I may be somewhat biased in my views.

[Curious]

S. Peterfreund has dodged the question, which is one of bias.  The argument "stop whining, get over it, things change. . ." could be applied to any difficult, unpleasant, or even unspeakable situation by those who see themselves in charge and wish to silence dissent.  (And please, spare us the ad hominem expressions like 'lowlander' and other condescending comments.)

The notion that one must suspend the teaching or discussing of the traditional until such time as one has assessed the importance of the previously undiscussed would lead to . . . ?  It would lead to what we have seen over the last several decades, the privileging of fads.  With  predominantly left of center faculties in the humanities and some social sciences, the fads are those which are of particular interest to people with that political inclination.  (How many recent fads have emerged in the humanities that cannot be explictly linked with a left-leaning ideological posture?  Let's see the list.)

Once upon a time there was the assumption that the humanities existed, in part, to preserve our cultural heritage.  It is quite fair to challenge that notion, to see the flaws in that heritage, and to argue for the inclusion of other voices, including, of course, countercultural voices.  No thinking person would disagree with that.  However, the notion that this function (even when viewed critically) should be suspended is not as readily apparent to average citizens (or, indeed, colleagues from other departments within the university) as it is to those who accept it without question.  (Cheers to Observer and her analogy with religious fervor.)

What is one to think about the fact that enrollments in core humanities areas have dropped precipitously, often to levels that are one-third of their pre-postmodern levels?  University presses are abandoning humanities lists.  Why?  Let me suggest two reasons.  First, humanists are writing books on subjects that are of minimal interest to readers (who, presumably, have a broader range of interests than race/class/gender/victimology).  Second, humanists do not buy their colleagues' books.  Why?  For a multiplicity of reasons.  In some cases the respective fields have been carved so narrowly as to verge on the self-indulgent.  In others, the books are organized by theme (here's yet another instance of the victimization of the oppressed. . .) or  they self-validate the predictable rather than offer new knowledge or offer counter-intuitive but defensible hypotheses.

There is, I believe, a very real sense that many left-leaning academics are more interested in things like politics, ideology, identity, and life style than in the putative subject of their discipline (whether it be the plastic arts, literary arts, or whatever).  They write books on subjects like "Patriarchy in film" (or fiction, or television, or whatever), but their real and abiding interest is patriarchy, not film, fiction, or television.  That's fine, but why do they not then study the fields that are best positioned to illuminate the issues?  Many of the issues that have been foregrounded in the humanities are more fruitfully studied by other disciplines, disciplines which are sometimes more scientific, rigorous, and objective.  That is one of the reasons for the split between the humanists and the scientists on campuses.  Humanists are often prepared to defend the scientifically-indefensible in the interest of ideology (e.g. the notion that women's and men's brains are the same).  Rather than listen to science (critically, of course) they invest their energies in attempts to undercut its claims.  They also cherry-pick the figures they feature in order to reinforce and validate ideological positions rather than expose themselves to new approaches.  Consider a single example--the humanities seem more interested in Saussure (d. 1913) than Chomsky.  This is incomprehensible to serious, practicing linguists.

[D.A. Harvey, New College of FL]

Many of the messages in this discussion reflect not a sense of inferiority among humanists and social scientists, but a rather smug sense of superiority among natural scientists, which calls to mind my own undergraduate days as a history major at a predominantly science and engineering-oriented university, when many of my fellow students assumed (falsely, in my case at least) that I had chosen my career path because I couldn't "cut it" as a scientist.  I do value my experience from those days, as it gave me some insight into and admiration for how scientists and engineers think.  I have a great deal of respect for my scientist colleagues, and consider the work that they do to be very valuable, whether it generates tangible benefits for society, or simply enriches our understanding of the structure of the world and of the universe.
I must confess to being rather puzzled as to why so many scientists (and not only in this discussion) feel the need to bash the humanities and social sciences.  Does it take an unusual degree of insight to realize that not all questions can be investigated and answered in the same manner, and that knowledge obtained through the experimental method (however valuable it may be) is not the only kind of knowledge worth having?  Take my own field of modern European history.   Much as I would love to do so, in my more fanciful moments, I cannot reconstruct an 18th century absolutist court in a laboratory, nor can I travel back in time to see how things would have turned out differently, say, had Germany won the First World War.  Historians cannot approach their subject matter in the same way as, say, a physicist or chemist approaches natural phenomena which can be recreated, controlled, and subjected to experimental variations.
Historical study (as is the case in many related disciplines) proceeds through a method which is not experimental, but rather broadly hermeneutic, focusing on the interpretation of texts and other artifacts of the past.   It has its own traditions, standards of evidence, and procedures of falsifiability, which theorists in related fields, such as Clifford Geertz and Paul Ricoeur, have described more lucidly than I can hope to do in this forum.  In brief, historians compare sources against one another, dismissing hypotheses and arguments that are inconsistent with the available evidence.  (As one of my own instructors, Robert Darnton, was fond of saying, there are multiple plausible interpretations of Macbeth, but if you think it's a comedy, you've got it wrong).  The "hermeneutic circle" does not allow us to achieve any sort of absolute truth, but it does allow us to approximate the truth ever more closely, as we dismiss those hypotheses that are clearly false.  This explains why historical debate is forever open-ended; it does not, as scholars from other fields unfamiliar with the methods of historical study often assume, mean that history is no more than individual opinion.
Interestingly, almost no one has taken up the original question of debate, that is:  should the humanities and social sciences have different governing structures than the natural sciences?   My own inclination is to say no.  True, there are different schools of interpretation, different methodologies, different ideological assumptions, but that will likely always be the case.  Scholars of goodwill can put aside their individual preferences and evaluate a colleague's work on its own terms and according to its merits.  Where goodwill is absent, I fail to see how the proposed remedies could fix anything;  they would merely further Balkanize the field of knowledge.   Procedural safeguards should, of course, be in place to prevent highly qualified scholars from being penalized for producing "politically incorrect" work.   I am skeptical, however, about charges that this happens all the time, and would insist (in good scientific and/or hermeneutic fashion) on seeing the evidence before buying into the argument.

[%sig%]

[Observer]

Dr. Harvey's post is thoughtful and helpful.  Its moderation, however, is not something that the postmodern academy would tolerate.  It is quite right that King Lear may be a tragedy of a family and it may be a tragedy of a country and it may be both and it may be other things, but it is not a story of a Buick dealer in Sarasota, Florida.  We can say, categorically, that some things that could be said about the play are simply not true.  The diehard postmodernist, however, would subscribe to a more extreme relativist position on such issues (regardless of the absurdities which such a position entails) and turn apopletic at the use of the word 'true.'  Since it is difficult to maintain things that are patently absurd, however, the postmodernist would not advance the notion that Lear's car agency has foundered . . .  He would more likely address theoretical issues that would lead to a position that would ultimately undercut the 'truthfulness' of propositions and the dangers of non-relativist postures.  But then again, who knows?  Once ideology kicks into gear, all sorts of things are possible.  We often see readings of The Tempest that see Caliban as a good person who is discriminated against by the colonializing Prospero (forgetting the fact that Prospero did not come to the island of his own free will, that Caliban was not an original inhabitant of the island, and that Prospero treated him well until he attempted to rape his daughter).

The humanities and social sciences--done well--are probably far more difficult to do than science but they are easier to do badly.  Dr. Harvey's point that we will not achieve absolute truth in, e.g., historiography, but that we can get closer and closer to it, is spot on.  This is, in fact, the precise model for scientific investigation posited by the 17thc and its popularizers in, e.g., the Royal Society.  'Causal' or essential knowledge will never be attained by man.  Hence, scientific 'knowledge' is always provisional and it is judged by its heuristic value.  Ditto history.  That formulation, however, assumes that some interpretations are better than others, that some facts are more relevant than others, and that every currently fashionable notion should be subjected to searching analysis so that the more useful/'true' can be refined and the less useful/'true' ultimately be abandoned.  Then, of course, you always have to be open to qualification of the formulation.  Phlogiston, e.g., didn't exist, but the belief in it still advanced chemistry.

If all of our humanities and social science colleagues would subscribe to these elementary principles we would make a quantum leap forward, but unfortunately they do not.

The reason for highlighting the science/humanities split is not to favor one over the other, but to note that many practices within the humanities are conducted in defiance of the practices of science, when once the two were far more closely aligned.  Why do many contemporary humanists do this?  Because their goal is to give voice to the voiceless first and foremost rather than gain other forms of understanding?  Because they are so personally fixated on forms of discrimination and oppression that those concerns eclipse all other possible issues?  Because certain issues are of such personal concern to them and their particular life style that they attempt to generalize the issues and make them the subject of scholarship or, indeed, the bases for new fields of investigation?  Because they believe that the achievement and/or inculcation of self-esteem is a more important goal than the development of new knowledge?  Because they believe that changing the world, here and now, is more important than attempting to understand it at a deeper level?

[barb, gov't "scientist"]

Here, here, Romaine!

To Runic, along with TR and Teodoru

Maybe the tentative nature of a humanist or social scientist just looks like an inferiority complex to you, because you are so arrogant.   Talk about ranting, untested, unsubstantiated generalizations!

The best of "true scientists" respect the tentativeness and evolving nature of knowledge, even after their experiments are done.  They are cautious in their conclusions, a quality you three would do well to emulate.  Many great scientists also love knowledge in all its forms, including art, music, literature,  philosophy.   Runic, perhaps it is YOU who is the insult--or at least an embarrassment--to the true scientists.   I can imagine your colleagues rolling their eyes now.  "Honestly, the rest of us are not like that!"

Let's not allow these black and white thinkers to redirect the discussion.   Peterfreund, Observer, and others, are exploring a post-postmodern crisis in the humanities.  We can hope this current re-examination will allow the humanistic fields to eventually find a more inclusive balance.  So too, the social sciences are realizing that logical positivism offers only a set of tools, and is not an definitive paradigm for the study of phenomena that are essentially chaotic and not linear.   Social science is re-emphasizing qualitative analysis, recognizing legitimate areas of study that are not (yet) quantitatively measurable.  

I don't like labeling this corrective action as "conservative", because opening up inquiry to many approaches is most "liberal," in the true sense of the word.  It is too important to allow it to be narrowly defined as hiring a couple of conservatives.   What type of university "governance structure" will best support this expansion?   And is a different governance structure even necessary, or can the fields be trusted to evolve into new directions?

[DE Teodoru]

BRAVO ROMAINE!!!

Why not make a gross sweeping statement yourself which totally obfuscates what any undergard in hard vs. phony science courses realizes from just observing th weirdo standing at the front of the class....No difference, eh!!!

[DE Teodoru]

All that beautiful  prose, Prof. Harvey, just to say what is just not so. No hard science guy gets to be "SMUG" because he has carniverous fellow scientists nipping at his grants!

The fact is, as I tried to say, that SCHOLARSHIP when done with enthisiasm, not arrogance, is valuable. Take flat-head Bush, for example. Had he had social scientists to advice him instead of Darth Veder Cheney and the mediocre unuc neocons out to prove that they are "mensch," he might have had more depth in policy and better anticipation of the concequences of his flat-earth policies.

But the acads thought that they were only said to: ppppleeeassse, insread of prrrretttty ppplllleeeeaaassse, so they said "TO HELL WITH YOU GEORGE, we'll see you at the polls!"

Now look what a fine mess every one with an IQ above 12 is because of those with less who rule!!

[DE Teodoru]

Sorry Barb, I didn't know I was submitting a paper for a refereed journal when i posted...Sure these are generalizations. But are they totally absurd?

Before you answer, please, SEARCH YOUR HUMANIST SOUL!!!

[T. Runic, Physics, U. of Texas]

I hope everyone reading this colloquy now understands what I was talking about.  Barb is the quintessential example of this.

Notice how her arguments are emotional?  Notice how none of my statements were refuted?  Notice how, without a credible argument, she can only wage personal attacks?
This is typical.

I might also point out the references to such goobly gook as"post-postmodernism crisis".  Words like these areused by those in the social "sciences" and humanities to sound sophisticated.  (As a side note, how many people reading this can define a post-postmodernism crisis---let alone describe how you "investigate" it.) You will never find such nonsense used in any credible scientific journal.  Don't think so?  I challenge you Barb to find that word in Physical Review, Journal of Chemical Physics, SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Devices, or Physica D.  (Don't waste your time.  It ain't there.)

One last thing.  The pharse "gov't scientist" is not something I would be too proud about.  Just because the government gives you that title doesn't make it so.  The government is notorious for assigning job titles arbitrarily.  Back in the 70's the federal government bestowed the title of GS-801 (general engineer) on people who had no academic credentials whatsoever.  The way they got it was to have their buddies write a letter saying they worked in quality control.  That was enough to get a California professional engineers license in QC.  They then went to the feds and said "if California recognizes us as engineers, why can't you?"  (It worked...)

[DE Teodoru]

Oh barb....why don't you criticize what is said, not some vague collective straw man. The criticism of social science is simply that it may be somewhat empirical but it is a post hoc explanation that cannot be tested. Physical sciences by definition require a testable hypothesis that comes out with same data from one hand to the other.

There are residual side-effect problems from social science approach to empiricism that make it vulnerable to perverters of intellect. Period!!!

If you can argue the contrary, please do so. But the diversion of attention from alternatives and the sweeping generalities about the alleged generalities you assume to be the position you disline...That ain't very scientific!

[S.St.Louis, Morehead State]

I am looking at a well-worn copy of "Ideas and Opinions" and wonder how Einstein would respond to this discourse.  Whose side would he chose-scientist or humanist?

[%sig%]

[S. Peterfreund, English, NU]

No, Curious (a misnomer to be sure), I have not dodged the issue.  The way to hold on to what is proven and assess what is unproven lies through inclusiveness.  I teach both the well-discussed and the underdiscussed, not the underdiscussed alone.

[Sigh....]

Sigh....
Does anybody really give two farts about what this petty debate has become? The humanities are THIS; the sciences are THAT. Shall we compare apples to oranges and claim that one represents reality and truthful logic and is therefore worth pursuing while the other is tragically, horrifyingly flawed and ought to be flushed from our system of thought? Because that's what this debate has become. "Our side" versus "their side." And such an ambiguously placed binary. For what? To get as many of us hot under the collar for another round of spewing.

Bye-bye, everyone. Bye-bye...

[John Garner]

I wish to comment on two quotes "garnered" from this increasingly divergent discourse...

Quote:

"Social science is re-emphasizing qualitative analysis, recognizing legitimate areas of study that are not (yet) quantitatively measurable. "

In Physics, if we have an area of qualitative analysis that is NOT quantitatively measurable we would classify it as "theory" at best and science fiction at worst. Drawing conclusions in this manner involves mostly "intuitive" processes and although intution seems to work for some it is not reliable. However, it is not truly "science" in the orthodox definition.

Undeniably, there are some GREAT "social science" theorists out there. However, all the work in the respective fields called social science cannot ride on their backs, especially John Dewey whose works are still open to interpretation and are often victimized by the modern phenomenon of spin. Simply put, not every PhD is competent just because competent social scientists exist.


Quote:

"I am looking at a well-worn copy of "Ideas and Opinions" and wonder how Einstein would respond to this discourse. Whose side would he chose-scientist or humanist?"

Einstein was a practical man with a gift that allowed him to analyze and propose theory that was quantitatively measurable. However, this gift did not make him a great Physicist. The proof of his not so obvious theories by quantitative methods by others made him a great Physicist.

Otherwise, Einstein was just as human as the rest of us. Being human makes us prone to make mistakes. The labs of many great scientists are littered with discarded theories that could not meet the demand for rigorous proof, reproducability of results and consistency that could be relied upon.

Therein lies the rub. Science is hopelessly tied to the measurable and the quantifiable. Theory can dance on the rings of Uranus. It is like a screechmonkey riding a jackass to quote a good friend of mine. It is as ridiculous as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until you can prove it quantitatively.

Until you have the rigorous proof that is tied to the quantitatively measurable, the theory can be revolutionary, the mathematics can be pure and the intellectual logic can be marvelous, but as far as its classification as Science is concerned, to quote DE Teodoru...

"That ain't very scientific!"

[D. G. S. Schweik]

I have enjoyed the playful give and take in the threads of this colloquy.  I’ve learned so much! One, only idiots go into the social sciences and humanities.  Plus, it seems that only an idiot savant can become a real scientist since those fields seem to require that you toss out anything resembling imagination, creativity, self-reflection and curiosity in order to succeed in “science.”  

Finally, I understand how creationist scientists come into being.  This colloquy reveals that a scientist simply regurgitates “facts” like a good little jackal without understanding the urgrund or cultural basis of their thoughts.  After all, it takes a manly scientist sans emotional baggage to really thump your chest and “gas on.”  

BTW, the narrative thread that I’ve enjoyed reading the most has been stuff like “I would posit that most are in social sciences because they could not cope with the rigors of ‘hard’ sciences.”  Boy that really cuts the humanists and social scientists to the quick!  It reminds me of the perspicacity displayed by so many MANLY scientists in faculty meetings, dinner parties and in most social settings.  

IMHO,   I’ve always thought that the real difference in the academy has to do with libido or lack thereof – with “scientists” sitting on the far left side of the curve with the rest of humanity occupying everything else.  It has always been a problem – and most scientist are continually stuck with “social envy” as can be easily witnessed throughout this “conversation.”

[%sig%]