3 ms·

I think it's official, we moderns owe an apology to medieval barbers and conjurers.

by timtas 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago
We don't - first we have correcting mechanisms in place. Second - the self deception ability is greater the softer/fuzzier the field is.
- stewbrew 11y ago
  Who measures softness/fuzziness of a field? Who makes sure that measurement isn't biased? Just because you use maths doesn't imply your conclusions and theories are as precise and clean cut as 2+2.
  - gsteinb88 11y ago
    I don't like the use of soft/fuzzy for certain fields, but I do know what it means in this context: it's shorthand for "fields so complicated that we aren't even sure if the questions we're asking mean anything." Take physics vs. psychology as an example. The top story on HN right now is about standardizing the kilogram by answering two questions: how many silicon-28 atoms do you need to equal the mass of the current reference kilogram, and at what pount a watt balance can support the 1 kg weight. This depends on a bunch of terminology and assumptions, but we're pretty clear what those are. In psychology on the other hand (a field I have a huge amount of respect for, incidentally), we're trying to ask questions about human behavior; everything we ask about is taken within a cultural context, predicated on assumed levels of "normal" behavior, and even assumes that humans /are/ repeatable in some sense (and a lot of psychology studies may not be repeatable at all...) That repeatability question is a big one, I think: we're a lot more sure about our ability to prepare equivalent circumstances with silicon-28 atoms for an experiment than with people.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > Who measures softness/fuzziness of a field? There's an absolutely unambiguous distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences Social scientists hold themselves to fundamentally different standards on things like repeatability and predictive power and methodolgy than other fields. And whenever that difference can be quantified (e.g. statistical results), "different" means "lower". It's just a fact, and it's one most sociologists will freely admit, for example. You simply can't get the same sorts of results on humans that you can get on e.g. chemical reactions. Unfortunately, soft/hard comes along with a value judgement that's not necessarily appropriate. But pretending like there isn't a clear difference between what are now referred to as the soft and hard sciences is disinegenious.
    - arcanus 11y ago
      Generally agree with the sentiment, but I think the line is fuzzy along the periphery. For instance, economics has, I would claim, far weaker levels of model validation than engineering fields, but often is presented as a hard or 'close-to-hard' science.

I think it's official, we moderns owe an apology to medieval barbers and conjurers.

by timtas 11y ago

I think it's official, we moderns owe an apology to medieval barbers and conjurers.

We don't - first we have correcting mechanisms in place. Second - the self deception ability is greater the softer/fuzzier the field is.

stewbrew 11y ago
Who measures softness/fuzziness of a field? Who makes sure that measurement isn't biased? Just because you use maths doesn't imply your conclusions and theories are as precise and clean cut as 2+2.
- gsteinb88 11y ago
  I don't like the use of soft/fuzzy for certain fields, but I do know what it means in this context: it's shorthand for "fields so complicated that we aren't even sure if the questions we're asking mean anything." Take physics vs. psychology as an example. The top story on HN right now is about standardizing the kilogram by answering two questions: how many silicon-28 atoms do you need to equal the mass of the current reference kilogram, and at what pount a watt balance can support the 1 kg weight. This depends on a bunch of terminology and assumptions, but we're pretty clear what those are. In psychology on the other hand (a field I have a huge amount of respect for, incidentally), we're trying to ask questions about human behavior; everything we ask about is taken within a cultural context, predicated on assumed levels of "normal" behavior, and even assumes that humans /are/ repeatable in some sense (and a lot of psychology studies may not be repeatable at all...) That repeatability question is a big one, I think: we're a lot more sure about our ability to prepare equivalent circumstances with silicon-28 atoms for an experiment than with people.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Who measures softness/fuzziness of a field? There's an absolutely unambiguous distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences Social scientists hold themselves to fundamentally different standards on things like repeatability and predictive power and methodolgy than other fields. And whenever that difference can be quantified (e.g. statistical results), "different" means "lower". It's just a fact, and it's one most sociologists will freely admit, for example. You simply can't get the same sorts of results on humans that you can get on e.g. chemical reactions. Unfortunately, soft/hard comes along with a value judgement that's not necessarily appropriate. But pretending like there isn't a clear difference between what are now referred to as the soft and hard sciences is disinegenious.
  - arcanus 11y ago
    Generally agree with the sentiment, but I think the line is fuzzy along the periphery. For instance, economics has, I would claim, far weaker levels of model validation than engineering fields, but often is presented as a hard or 'close-to-hard' science.