4 ms·

I read this argument before, in a paper by the author I think. I thought it was nonsense then and this article doesn't change my opinion about it. The purported

by anatoly 17y ago

I read this argument before, in a paper by the author I think. I thought it was nonsense then and this article doesn't change my opinion about it. The purported explanations are really unconvincing, the analogies very strained.

hga 17y ago
Agreed, the author just doesn't supply any strong evidence for her thesis. Would it be impolite to point out that she's an "English Major"? Then again, her A Levels might have given her a far better grounding in math than is the norm in the US.
- tsally 17y ago
  Would it be impolite to point out that she's an "English Major"? You already know the answer to this question. Also note that she's not an "English Major" in the sense you imply, she's getting a PhD in English Lit from Oxford. If indeed her arguments are incorrect, you should be able to frame a refutation on ideas alone instead of resorting to an ad hominem argument. Ironically, this is a basic skill even "English Majors" possess.
  - hga 17y ago
    Impolite does not mean irrelevant. What I'm trying to point out is that there is no sign in what little we know of her biography or in this article that she knows math at this level, the modern math she thinks Carroll is skewering. Let's put it this way: how certain is anyone here that she understands how quaternions are non-commutative and how that was such a leap from all previous algebra? Such a leap that it took Hamilton years before he made it, such that it is commemorated on the bridge where he first wrote (carved) a solution? Something I impolitely point out is that all too often I've seen people from "the humanities" make incorrect claims about "us" without any understanding of our work or our culture, which they don't realize is a superset of their's. (And I'm annoyed about all the attention they get in doing this, but I suppose that's obvious.)
    - tsally 17y ago
      I'll join you in being annoying that she got published in the Times and I'll agree there are blatant inaccuracies in the article, but there are more effective arguments than insulting the author or the humanities at large. There's plenty to disagree with in the article without resorting to that. As for mathematics being a superset of the humanities, that is just patently false. Here are a few counter examples [1,2,3]. I always find it interesting when fellow engineers/scientists argue for the superiority of their discipline when compared to the humanities. Personally I find the hard sciences awe inspiring enough to stand by themselves. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Brueghel-... [2] http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1760/ http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1760/ [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=lZDCequ4E4kC&pg=PA170#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=lZDCequ4E4kC&pg=PA170#v...
      - hga 17y ago
        I think I was unclear WRT to your last point. I'm saying that "we", the STEM types, live in a popular and to a certain degree also a higher culture that is a superset of the culture that those in "the humanities" live in. It's a very broad generalization, perhaps colored by my being a part of a sub-group that would go to the ballet, Shakespeare productions, Ring Cycles (and each of us had at least one poet and painter we really liked, etc. etc.) ... but then again those who didn't like attending "operas [that] last three or four days" nonetheless had at least a minute appreciation, e.g. we weren't denigrated for our particular interests. I was told an anecdote by someone in a course by Sherry Turkle: he said that one day there were many absences due to a Grateful Dead concert and that she couldn't comprehend this. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of her incomprehension, but at least as of the early 80s I didn't know anyone who knew her who thought she had a clue about what she was studying. Perhaps I should say that there was nothing in the culture (as construed above) of those in "the humanities" that was out of bounds for us, whereas e.g. they'd never get jokes like the ones about an Abelian Grape, or better, a spherical cow ("Let us solve Schrodinger's equation for a cow. First assume...").
        17y ago
jey 17y ago
> The purported explanations are really unconvincing, the analogies very strained. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when "analyzing" literature?
- anatoly 17y ago
  No. If you read the genuinely good critics, that's not so at all. They open your eyes to great things you haven't noticed, but have actually been there.

by anatoly 17y ago

hga 17y ago

Agreed, the author just doesn't supply any strong evidence for her thesis. Would it be impolite to point out that she's an "English Major"? Then again, her A Levels might have given her a far better grounding in math than is the norm in the US.

tsally 17y ago
Would it be impolite to point out that she's an "English Major"? You already know the answer to this question. Also note that she's not an "English Major" in the sense you imply, she's getting a PhD in English Lit from Oxford. If indeed her arguments are incorrect, you should be able to frame a refutation on ideas alone instead of resorting to an ad hominem argument. Ironically, this is a basic skill even "English Majors" possess.
- hga 17y ago
  Impolite does not mean irrelevant. What I'm trying to point out is that there is no sign in what little we know of her biography or in this article that she knows math at this level, the modern math she thinks Carroll is skewering. Let's put it this way: how certain is anyone here that she understands how quaternions are non-commutative and how that was such a leap from all previous algebra? Such a leap that it took Hamilton years before he made it, such that it is commemorated on the bridge where he first wrote (carved) a solution? Something I impolitely point out is that all too often I've seen people from "the humanities" make incorrect claims about "us" without any understanding of our work or our culture, which they don't realize is a superset of their's. (And I'm annoyed about all the attention they get in doing this, but I suppose that's obvious.)
  - tsally 17y ago
    I'll join you in being annoying that she got published in the Times and I'll agree there are blatant inaccuracies in the article, but there are more effective arguments than insulting the author or the humanities at large. There's plenty to disagree with in the article without resorting to that. As for mathematics being a superset of the humanities, that is just patently false. Here are a few counter examples [1,2,3]. I always find it interesting when fellow engineers/scientists argue for the superiority of their discipline when compared to the humanities. Personally I find the hard sciences awe inspiring enough to stand by themselves. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Brueghel-... [2] http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1760/ http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1760/ [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=lZDCequ4E4kC&pg=PA170#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=lZDCequ4E4kC&pg=PA170#v...
    - hga 17y ago
      I think I was unclear WRT to your last point. I'm saying that "we", the STEM types, live in a popular and to a certain degree also a higher culture that is a superset of the culture that those in "the humanities" live in. It's a very broad generalization, perhaps colored by my being a part of a sub-group that would go to the ballet, Shakespeare productions, Ring Cycles (and each of us had at least one poet and painter we really liked, etc. etc.) ... but then again those who didn't like attending "operas [that] last three or four days" nonetheless had at least a minute appreciation, e.g. we weren't denigrated for our particular interests. I was told an anecdote by someone in a course by Sherry Turkle: he said that one day there were many absences due to a Grateful Dead concert and that she couldn't comprehend this. Unfortunately I can't remember the details of her incomprehension, but at least as of the early 80s I didn't know anyone who knew her who thought she had a clue about what she was studying. Perhaps I should say that there was nothing in the culture (as construed above) of those in "the humanities" that was out of bounds for us, whereas e.g. they'd never get jokes like the ones about an Abelian Grape, or better, a spherical cow ("Let us solve Schrodinger's equation for a cow. First assume...").
      - 17y ago

jey 17y ago

> The purported explanations are really unconvincing, the analogies very strained. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when "analyzing" literature?

anatoly 17y ago
No. If you read the genuinely good critics, that's not so at all. They open your eyes to great things you haven't noticed, but have actually been there.