Nicker on 4/2/2014 at 08:47

---

Well there's your problem right there! You started at the wrong end. When you construct a thesis you (ostensibly) start with data, interpret it and arrive at a conclusion.

But when you read one, either to understand it or to refute it, you start with the abstract and move immediately to the conclusion. Examine this for relevance, insight or weakness then move backwards to the results and discussion. Examine this for relevance, insight or weakness. Only if you have no other choice or are truly inspired, wade through the methodology and the data. Only under extreme duress should you be required to examine the introduction.

faetal on 4/2/2014 at 20:05

---

I went into my thesis thinking I didn't have the self-discipline for it. I ended up gaining self-discipline as something I can contrive now. I'm seriously happy with the training aspect of doing a PhD. I'm now trained to the extent that I wish I could go back and do everything again properly.

Chimpy Chompy on 4/2/2014 at 22:07

---

huh?

faetal on 4/2/2014 at 22:29

---

Ha! Yup :)

demagogue on 5/2/2014 at 00:46

---

Most of the stuff I research is about the ab/uses of science in policy and law, particularly environmental and safety regulations, so I know all about that. But in saying I envy the natural sciences and its honed BS filter, I wasn't meaning to say the methods of natural science are always appropriate for humanities subjects in the same way for some of the reasons you mentioned. Not just bias (which all good science has to worry about and isn't an issue just with the humanities -- confirmation bias, professional bias, status quo bias, all the cognitive biases, etc), but other subjects have to bring in values like legitimacy, justice, fairness, "the good life", utility, that scientific methods can't get traction on by themselves.

Like, with environmental law, you can have a good dose-response curve showing the S-like relationship between exposure to some chemical, say benzene in water or SO2 in air emissions, and likelihood of cancer or whatever, and maybe there's some scientific debate about how to extrapolate the data points on the low end and some uncertainty, and you have animal studies or epidemiological studies that give you the data (which both have their own extra-science issues, which I gather is part of faetal's underlying assumption; do we have to use animals if there are alternatives?), but a bigger conceptual issue is, even if we have a perfect curve, where do we draw a line at the bottom: you may not have any more benzene in your water than up to this line, as a matter of law and policy? You have to bring in extra-scientific values because the data can't answer it by itself; what's the value to society, what's the level of risk people consent to (a lot for cars and alcohol, less for factories' production), etc.

But all of this is separate from saying humanities work tends to barter in BS more often IMO. It's not that they should use strict quantitative methods per se. It's that in using qualitative methods or arguing extra-science values, they still have to be responsible with it & not think they have a blank check to say whatever the hell they want because there isn't data around to contradict them; they still need to make rational arguments that back up their conclusion. I think they need to be even *more* careful with how they argue than scientists exactly because there isn't always data. But you'll hear things like "the meaning of words or identity is nothing more than the hegemony's interest, and it constructs them" (which they can believe because their understanding of semantics and behavior stops with Sassure & Freud and 1920s linguistics & psychology, I'd say a century behind the curve, but even in the 1920s people didn't buy it) or when there's the slightest scientific uncertainty science is irrelevant and there's a blank check to do anything you want again... They make simple flawed arguments over and over, and nobody is checking it. Actually in many cases it's not only encouraged but you can't get an academic position *unless* you stick to the dogma or what Leiter always called The Party Line, so it spreads like wildfire. I don't like that part.

Edit: I need to apologize to faetal or ask for his permission, since this is overtaking the thread. In my mind, the very happy occasion of faetal's thesis submission is a good chance to start talking about academia generally, and what all these theses mean in the big scheme of things, and his opinion is going to be really valuable on that. But others might not see it that way, so if it's better to cut the chitchat then I'll bow out with apologies.