4 ms·

French Lit is harder. Much harder per Kolmogorov complexity, but even if you're running it on monkeys, getting the right answer out to the limits of evidence wo

French Lit is harder. Much harder per Kolmogorov complexity, but even if you're running it on monkeys, getting the right answer out to the limits of evidence would be a huge work of detective and archeological and historical study far beyond the source text. You would be attempting to reconstruct someone's mind from the outside in, with very fragmentary life-logs. IOW, French lit only seems easy because academics aren't aiming to be right. They just want an informed guess. In physics, this is considered the start of an investigation, not the end product.

ErrantX 17y ago
Having had some training in classical lit. and [previously] gone out with a girl reading French Lit. at university I cant help but agree. I expect a Physicist could write enough to fool a French Lit. magazine - but only superficially. I dont think they could write meaningfully on a subject. I also know a few literary students who I suspect could write a sufficiently obtuse piece of work in, say, a month to fool some physicists. Again only superficially. I think the fallacy Paul falls into is the thinking that French Lit. professors don't question what they read in the same way Physicists do. Unfortunately it's a stereotype that does bear out in some respects - but the top guys certainly do question everything. Indeed they will almost certainly disagree by default and go out of their way to find proof. If you think you've seen scientists bitching and arguing you've never hung round with literature scholars :D
tokenadult 17y ago
French lit only seems easy because academics aren't aiming to be right. But that is the whole problem: whether or not the discipline aims to be right. I am very closely acquainted with a relative who has a Ph.D. in French literature, and he literally would rather die than attempt to earn even an undergraduate degree in physics.
anamax 17y ago
> French Lit is harder. What definition of "harder" are we using? In physics, there's at least the illusion that there's a "correct" answer. If your theory predicts that a cubic meter of gold has less mass than a cubic meter of water, you've got a serious problem. In literature, there is no "gold standard" to use as a referee or to consult in helping to make a decision.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. To be the closest evidential approximation to correct, you would have to do your best to simulate these machines using every possibly accessible causal consequent of the relevant past remaining in the present. This is the "gold standard" but it would be technologically and financially implausible. Thus, "doing it right" is impossibly hard. Only "doing it wrong" is easy.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. Even that's not enough. It is generally agreed that the author's intent isn't binding. There is no generally accepted definition of "correct" in literature. One could say that the lack of "correct" makes literature harder, or one could say that asking for correct or judging it by that basis is wrong. If you do the latter (which seems reasonable), you can't compare it with physics on the basis of "harder".

ErrantX 17y ago

Having had some training in classical lit. and [previously] gone out with a girl reading French Lit. at university I cant help but agree. I expect a Physicist could write enough to fool a French Lit. magazine - but only superficially. I dont think they could write meaningfully on a subject. I also know a few literary students who I suspect could write a sufficiently obtuse piece of work in, say, a month to fool some physicists. Again only superficially. I think the fallacy Paul falls into is the thinking that French Lit. professors don't question what they read in the same way Physicists do. Unfortunately it's a stereotype that does bear out in some respects - but the top guys certainly do question everything. Indeed they will almost certainly disagree by default and go out of their way to find proof. If you think you've seen scientists bitching and arguing you've never hung round with literature scholars :D

tokenadult 17y ago

French lit only seems easy because academics aren't aiming to be right. But that is the whole problem: whether or not the discipline aims to be right. I am very closely acquainted with a relative who has a Ph.D. in French literature, and he literally would rather die than attempt to earn even an undergraduate degree in physics.

anamax 17y ago

> French Lit is harder. What definition of "harder" are we using? In physics, there's at least the illusion that there's a "correct" answer. If your theory predicts that a cubic meter of gold has less mass than a cubic meter of water, you've got a serious problem. In literature, there is no "gold standard" to use as a referee or to consult in helping to make a decision.

JulianMorrison 17y ago
To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. To be the closest evidential approximation to correct, you would have to do your best to simulate these machines using every possibly accessible causal consequent of the relevant past remaining in the present. This is the "gold standard" but it would be technologically and financially implausible. Thus, "doing it right" is impossibly hard. Only "doing it wrong" is easy.
- anamax 17y ago
  > To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. Even that's not enough. It is generally agreed that the author's intent isn't binding. There is no generally accepted definition of "correct" in literature. One could say that the lack of "correct" makes literature harder, or one could say that asking for correct or judging it by that basis is wrong. If you do the latter (which seems reasonable), you can't compare it with physics on the basis of "harder".