5 ms·

In the humanities it is a bit harder than medicine because you can't even do controlled experiments in most situations, and observational statistics is complica

by alextp 17y ago

In the humanities it is a bit harder than medicine because you can't even do controlled experiments in most situations, and observational statistics is complicated.

anamax 17y ago
> In the humanities it is a bit harder than medicine because you can't even do controlled experiments in most situations, and observational statistics is complicated. That's not the hard part. In the humanities, people care about the answers. They want to find economic value in diversity, for example. No one went into medicine to prove that a particular compound cured gout.
- ahi 17y ago
  But a researcher's grants/patents certainly do depend on proving a particular compound cures gout.
  - bbgm 17y ago
    Usually not. The researchers grants depend on figuring out the mechanisms around a certain class of compounds curing gout. A pharma company is going to take that research and find a compound that can be patented (a process that takes a while and rarely gets research funding
  - _delirium 17y ago
    Many researchers also have for-profit companies on the side, and care about whether the results they publish in their day job are good or bad press for those companies. (Especially common in biomed.)
- timwiseman 17y ago
  In many of the social sciences, people come into the field with agendas and political leanings that at best subtly bias what they are doing and at worst override their search for truth and cause them to find the results they want, whether those results are real or not. In the hard sciences, there is rarely an agenda. People often care very much about the results, but they rarely bring with them deeply rooted political biases.
philwelch 17y ago
Strictly speaking the "humanities" (philosophy, literature, history) don't make any kind of attempt at science at all, whereas the social sciences (economics, sociology) have the difficulties you point out.

by alextp 17y ago

In the humanities it is a bit harder than medicine because you can't even do controlled experiments in most situations, and observational statistics is complicated.

anamax 17y ago

> In the humanities it is a bit harder than medicine because you can't even do controlled experiments in most situations, and observational statistics is complicated. That's not the hard part. In the humanities, people care about the answers. They want to find economic value in diversity, for example. No one went into medicine to prove that a particular compound cured gout.

ahi 17y ago
But a researcher's grants/patents certainly do depend on proving a particular compound cures gout.
- bbgm 17y ago
  Usually not. The researchers grants depend on figuring out the mechanisms around a certain class of compounds curing gout. A pharma company is going to take that research and find a compound that can be patented (a process that takes a while and rarely gets research funding
- _delirium 17y ago
  Many researchers also have for-profit companies on the side, and care about whether the results they publish in their day job are good or bad press for those companies. (Especially common in biomed.)
timwiseman 17y ago
In many of the social sciences, people come into the field with agendas and political leanings that at best subtly bias what they are doing and at worst override their search for truth and cause them to find the results they want, whether those results are real or not. In the hard sciences, there is rarely an agenda. People often care very much about the results, but they rarely bring with them deeply rooted political biases.

philwelch 17y ago

Strictly speaking the "humanities" (philosophy, literature, history) don't make any kind of attempt at science at all, whereas the social sciences (economics, sociology) have the difficulties you point out.