3 ms·
yes, of course. because it is completely atypical for humanities to have data that either confirms or disproves some hypothesis. that's more of a "hard science"
by bakhy 12y ago
yes, of course. because it is completely atypical for humanities to have data that either confirms or disproves some hypothesis. that's more of a "hard science" thing ;) humanities simply cannot operate like that. no data can prove why Shakespeare was good.
i think the author was simply pointing out that no significant new discovery was, or perhaps even could be, made that way. he was just attacking the hype, the story of new breakthroughs right around the corner, of the entire field of humanities being shaken to the core.. not by this.
and also, this Ngram discovery is a weak one. to reach some proper scientific level they should not restrict it to checking a couple of examples with known outcomes. it really should produce something new. otherwise, would it not be in danger of simply being a manifestation of confirmation bias?
edit - ok, i may be using the term "humanities" wrong :) i guess some can get a lot from data, but some really cannot.
- ppod 12y ago>checking a couple of examples with known outcomes. How do we know the outcomes are known without evidence? For example: > The computer can tell you that titles have shrunk (and you hardly need a computer to tell you that: the bulky eighteenth-century title is commonplace and a target of jokes even today Now of course it's a really god hypothesis that book titles have got shorter. I'd bet a lot that it's true. But the way science works is that we take our hunches and make sure that we're not fooling ourselves by checking against actual data. Of course there is a risk of bias by choosing which hypotheses we test - but that's better than just assuming that all our hypotheses are true!
- bakhy 12y agoyou are right, but i believe the point was in the triviality of the find. humanities are often in territory which can not be quantified.