5 ms·

Before I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.

by Jimmy 11y ago

2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
Honest question, what does that mean?
- GuiA 11y ago
  Can't speak for 'Jimmy, but here's my interpretation of what he's saying: The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things. By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things. Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere. To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
  - ci5er 11y ago
    That was ... delightful, lucid, and incredibly genteel towards the wearers of both sets of lenses. As an old-school liberal education, new-school engineering type, I (personally) bristle at some of these critiques. You handled it quite deftly. This did not need to be a public comment, but I don't know how to PM here, so ... there we are. EDIT: By "these critiques", I meant the article that ... might not resonate with the HN crowd.
    - pygy_ 11y ago
      FYI, there are no PMs on HN, but thanking someone (being civil in general) is most welcome.
  - iamcreasy 11y ago
    Excellent. It's just like what Donald Knuth said, "Don't believe something is good just because it's trendy. I'd probably go the other extreme way. If I find too many people adopting a certain idea, I'd probably think its wrong." Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c I've always find those questions that are generally regarded as stupid party amusing. Because I think those questions showing the difference in out thought process, and instead of stigmatizing it there are valuable lessons to be learned here.

Before I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.

by Jimmy 11y ago

Before I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.

2muchcoffeeman 11y ago

Honest question, what does that mean?

GuiA 11y ago
Can't speak for 'Jimmy, but here's my interpretation of what he's saying: The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things. By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things. Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere. To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
- ci5er 11y ago
  That was ... delightful, lucid, and incredibly genteel towards the wearers of both sets of lenses. As an old-school liberal education, new-school engineering type, I (personally) bristle at some of these critiques. You handled it quite deftly. This did not need to be a public comment, but I don't know how to PM here, so ... there we are. EDIT: By "these critiques", I meant the article that ... might not resonate with the HN crowd.
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    FYI, there are no PMs on HN, but thanking someone (being civil in general) is most welcome.
- iamcreasy 11y ago
  Excellent. It's just like what Donald Knuth said, "Don't believe something is good just because it's trendy. I'd probably go the other extreme way. If I find too many people adopting a certain idea, I'd probably think its wrong." Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c I've always find those questions that are generally regarded as stupid party amusing. Because I think those questions showing the difference in out thought process, and instead of stigmatizing it there are valuable lessons to be learned here.