送交者: psycho 于 2005-11-24, 11:19:05:
回答: Agree. 由 psycho 于 2005-11-24, 11:01:59:
But besides literature (creative writing), the scholastic standard for humanity is no lower than the fields of science/engineering, at least before postmodernism messed up some small fraction (notice Sokal's intention for his famous hoax is to expose the "decline" of the scholastic standard, not the "bad/lax" standard). He is more modest than the cheap-shot perversion made by conceit low-grade scientist (who lack recognition by peers hence need recognition by outsiders) quoting him. The difference is that humanity usually make conclusion more based on literature (in the sense of past works, not creative writing) and histories, and not observations of the physical worlds. The inaccuracies of many support in humanity research are due to the nature that observations of human world is harder to measure than those in the lab condition. This is its challenges, not the problem produced by the discipline itself. Unless you think humanity has no reason to exist from the first place, imposing its challenges as its faults is not a right way, not to mention very distasteful tool for self-importance.
And logic is equally important for a good humanity researcher as for a good science researcher. Not to mention to quantitative skills for social science reserchers.