6 ms·

I am not sure if I agree. This is a debate that isn't really related to diversity since people have asked things like how mathematics became so successful in ot

I am not sure if I agree. This is a debate that isn't really related to diversity since people have asked things like how mathematics became so successful in other sciences like physics. I guess you could apply that questioning to sociology. You could ask why some groups are more prone to crime than others using a statistical test. You could maybe use data to try to reason about sociological questions. It might turn up some ugly results. Or maybe people could ask why standardized scores differ between groups and instead of concluding there must be a difference in the test takers, they conclude the mathematics on the test must be at fault. So where it is convenient people question the validity of mathematics itself. But on the other hand when someone tries to quantify diversity statistics and says there are too many white men who are CEOs or there is a black-white wealth gap, it seems like mathematics is perfectly legitimate. Should people watching the populations of white people be reminded that their statistical techniques are incorrect because they haven't been 'decolonised'? Of course it's a very deep topic in the philosophy of science, foundations of math and logic, and philosophy of mathematics to ask about what math really is and where it applies but that's not what is being done here when there is talk of decolonisation.

candiodari 4y ago
The point of sociology, like all the humanist sciences (even languages) is to change the world, not to study it. The highest good in social sciences is social change, and methods to achieve it. You're applying positivist ideas to non-positivist sciences. For humanist sciences truth is a tool in service of a higher, moral goal. Just like lying is another tool. Both are to be used, and whether some claim is true or false is not nearly as relevant as whether it can change society. For languages truth is irrelevant, after all you're studying fiction. Fiction is mean to convey "higher truths", which can in practice be anything from amusement to outright deception. Often people in these sciences go further and go for outright postmodernism, which disputes that truth and falsehood even exist at all. It's just a matter of perspective.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  that sounds terrifying. they are given grant money for this.
  - Garlef 4y ago
    Something being terrifying does not make it true.
- Garlef 4y ago
  This is a great example of precisely what I find problematic about applying logic in a simplified way. In itself the argument seems valid. But it relies on assumptions that are (at best) highly debatable: First, the author of the post assumes that the definition of the humanities he presents is universally true (carried by everyone). It is not: I never heard of it before, and I don't agree with it. To me it's just part of a taxonomy of how departments in universities are partitioned. Second, even under the assumption that this definition was universally shared, the argument presupposes that this definition would then also fully determine the actual praxis. Which I highly doubt. Third, the point about lying is just a bunch of fear mongering BS. Etc etc.

candiodari 4y ago

The point of sociology, like all the humanist sciences (even languages) is to change the world, not to study it. The highest good in social sciences is social change, and methods to achieve it. You're applying positivist ideas to non-positivist sciences. For humanist sciences truth is a tool in service of a higher, moral goal. Just like lying is another tool. Both are to be used, and whether some claim is true or false is not nearly as relevant as whether it can change society. For languages truth is irrelevant, after all you're studying fiction. Fiction is mean to convey "higher truths", which can in practice be anything from amusement to outright deception. Often people in these sciences go further and go for outright postmodernism, which disputes that truth and falsehood even exist at all. It's just a matter of perspective.

onetimeusename 4y ago
that sounds terrifying. they are given grant money for this.
- Garlef 4y ago
  Something being terrifying does not make it true.
Garlef 4y ago
This is a great example of precisely what I find problematic about applying logic in a simplified way. In itself the argument seems valid. But it relies on assumptions that are (at best) highly debatable: First, the author of the post assumes that the definition of the humanities he presents is universally true (carried by everyone). It is not: I never heard of it before, and I don't agree with it. To me it's just part of a taxonomy of how departments in universities are partitioned. Second, even under the assumption that this definition was universally shared, the argument presupposes that this definition would then also fully determine the actual praxis. Which I highly doubt. Third, the point about lying is just a bunch of fear mongering BS. Etc etc.