It makes me smile to see programmers having the same arguments about language that philosophers have been having about stories for three thousand years.
@Mainebot I suspect that many programmers would consider philosophy the least relevant branch of the humanities.
Kind of a real shame.
The humanities in general get endless amounts of shit from other disciplines, but then you see shockingly immoral silicon valley 'disruption' and then suddenly "oh no how could we ever have foreseen this no one could have predicted this," but seriously, a philosophy student, an English major, or even just a rhetorician could have fixed your problem before it started.
@Mainebot @starbreaker Yeah, but humanity majors have basically run the world for the past hundred years. Don't most politicians have backgrounds in Poli sci and law?
From my experience, Poli sci and law are pretty well-removed from what traditionally passes for the humanities.
When I was in school, the only time we had anyone from either discipline in a class was because it was a firm requirement to graduate. Non-participatory, simple classes, in it for the grade. In the same way I had science prerequisites, so I took weather science and statistics.
I am not a meteorologist, nor am I a statistician.
@Mainebot @starbreaker My frustration when I took most history classes was there was no way to prove if you are right, so what is the point? If I disagree with another scientist, I can go into the lab and figure out which one of us is right. Whereas when I took Science, Technology And the World, a history class, it basically felt like every essay was an opinion piece.
@starbreaker @Mainebot @Canageek
So it's not about seeking truth but convincing everyone around you that you've found it.
@drequivalent @Canageek @Mainebot Once you leave physical reality behind truth becomes amorphous.
@starbreaker @drequivalent @Mainebot Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. One of the things we discussed was a model of how scientific thought develops. The idea was there is a padiagram that is developed that fits current thinking. Then most people will defend it, as more holes are poked in it, eventually it will tear and a new one developed.
@Mainebot @drequivalent @starbreaker But how do we know that is correct? It appears to match historical conclusions, but that could just be modelling to fit past trends, and the examples could be cherry picked. If I were setting it up, I would also look for present examples then watch them for a few years to test its predictive power. Also look for counter examples.
@Canageek @drequivalent @starbreaker
Doesn't this sort of assume, a sociological context, that the cultural and social forces that dictate actions are static, homogeneous, and unknown? If the underpinning rules that guide only semi-rational actions are themselves subject to change in unknowable ways, doesn't that mean that a rigorous scientific understanding is out-of-reach?
@Mainebot @drequivalent @starbreaker Right, so how do you use humanities to set policy then if they can't provide a firm answer?
@Canageek @Mainebot @drequivalent
Who say they can't? Immanuel Kant argued for treating people as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. John Rawls argued for the "veil of ignorance" that one should design policy on the assumption that they won't be the one to benefit from said policy.
Conversely, how do you use science to determine policy when the experiment requires testing on human populations and getting informed consent would distort the results?
@starbreaker @Mainebot @drequivalent Model systems would be popular. Or do it in a small, uninhabited area. (Canada has several lakes devoted to this). Computer simulations. Or past data. Usually we have to fight for years after the fact to get anyone to listen.
Or you find countries similar in most ways but with different policies.
@Canageek @starbreaker @drequivalent
Shouldn't the people who the policy is going to affect have a direct say on the implementation of that policy? Arbitrarily subjecting people to it because the science was there ignores the human component entirely.
Like, historically, that hasn't really worked out well for the marginalized individuals.
Also, the data can be interpreted in a way favorable to some, and not to others. It doesn't speak for itself.
@Mainebot @starbreaker @drequivalent They should be consulted, but I'm VERY skeptical of that as it has lead to more harm being done to people REPEATEDLY. See: Vaccination laws. People demanded it not be mandatory, when the science clearly saws that is best for everyone, doubly so marginalized people.
Other examples: Calgary recently stopped fluorinating its water due to public demand. The childhood cavity rate went up by over 200% in a year.
@Canageek @starbreaker @drequivalent
The problem wasn't the act, the problem was an ignorant people making a decision. The answer isn't to remove the ability to choose, because that's totalitarianism. You don't even need to take that to a logical extreme to see that's a bad idea.
@Mainebot @starbreaker @drequivalent Oh, I agree. However, populism scares me about 80% as much as totalitarianism. We are in an age where expertise is despised and the idea is that the public knows just as much or better then an expert in the field.
@drequivalent @starbreaker @Mainebot Which terrifies me. Scientists have been warning about climate change since the 90s, and no one listens as everything thinks they know better. Vaccines. Etc. I would like a way of establishing a respect for expertise more without becoming totalitarian.
@Canageek @drequivalent @starbreaker
This is crashing into the real problem now. An educated populace. I have no clear answer, except a slash in military funding to subsidize post-secondary education.
@Mainebot @drequivalent @Canageek what about K-12 education? What about the anti-intellectualism in our culture that leads to kids who care more about their studies than they do about being social with other kids getting marginalized?
@starbreaker @Mainebot @drequivalent Related problems? If you increase how much power scientists have, we are GOING to ask for more K-12 science focus, AND more funding for it. PLUS that makes science more prestigious, which leads to more kids wanting to go into it. Look how much less marginalized computer geeks are now then in the 90s?
