Why do humanists barely use mathematical models?
>>317967
For what purpose?
Humanities are full of people from the "I hate math" crowd i.e. they are too dumb for logical and rigorous thinking.
>>317980
This. I've yet to see a single philosopher who's done anything for logic or mathematics.
>>317967
Because not everything is quantifiable.
>>317985
Nvm, read that as humanities.
>>317984
I hope you mean "met personally", because there are plenty of philosophers who contributed a lot for logic and mathematics.
>>317980
>they are too dumb for logical and rigorous thinking.
I don't think it's because they're too dumb. I think it's because they been sold the lie that one is simply good or bad at math. I have cousin with a PhD in philosophy and he says how terrible he is at math and that he will simply never understand it. This is despite him never actually putting effort into learning it. I find it highly insulting too because it devalues all the fucking hard work I put into understanding my field, like I just fucking woke up one day knowing real analysis.
Elaborate.
If I was publishing statistical stuff in social science I would always get someone from the math faculty to check over my drafts.
>>317967
qualitative research > quantitative research
>humanists
The Renaissance humanists?
And the answer is because of the artificial STEM/humanities dichotomy that is slowly tearing the Western intellect apart neuron by neuron.
>>318010
Yep, that's it.
>>317998
Name one. Philosophy has been a pain in the ass of Science since the beginning of time. The only exception would be the Analytics, but they were more mathematicians than philosophers.
>>317984
>Implying
>http://www.storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html
"Although usually remembered today as a philosopher, Plato was also one of ancient Greece’s most important patrons of mathematics. Inspired by Pythagoras, he founded his Academy in Athens in 387 BCE, where he stressed mathematics as a way of understanding more about reality. In particular, he was convinced that geometry was the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe. The sign above the Academy entrance read: “Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here”."
>>318111
Leibniz
>Analytics
>were
>>318145
Big names like Quine and Rorty appear to have folded the distinction.
>>318145
Nice cherry pick
>>318056
Mathematics can be qualitative, which you'd know if you ever got any further than arithmetic. Also there isn't such a fine line between those two.
>>318010
They are dumb for not realizing that putting effort into understanding shit improves your chances of understanding shit
>>318016
Most people don't, obviously, considering the cult of statistical significance.
>>317984
And I've yet to see an anti-philosopher who wasn't completely wrong.
Aristotle, Descartes, Berkeley, Russell, Whitehead, etc., etc.
>>317975
Modelling, predicting, inferring, hypothesising...
You know, shit you use mathematical models for.
>>318111
Bertrand Russel. He literally was one of the founders of modern logic
>>317984
>This. I've yet to see a single philosopher who's done anything for logic or mathematics.
Aristotle, Chryssipus
>>317967
That's more for the applied fields.
>>318895
What do you mean by that? That statistics can't be qualitative?
>>318923
Nietzsche was kind of an anti-philosopher. But at the same time he looked down even more on the type of anti-philosophers you mention (like scientism).
>>318111
pythagoras
>>318111
Descartes?
Bacon?
That's where you got your science from.
>>317984
Aristotle invented your so-called "logic"
>>318010
>putting effort into learning
Yes, most people aren't autistic enough for this kind of shit so they don't do it.
>dude numbers lmao
>let me hire a private tutor and spend my precious freetime doing extra lessons because le math is awesum
It's not a fucking surprise that all STEMlords are assburgers that can barely function in normal life.
>>319693
aristotelian logic is outdated, bro. universal qualifiers don't imply existentials
>>319759
>Newton and Einstein were retards cause they got things wrong haha *dips fedora*
>>317980
This desu
There are exceptions but that is the norm
People who say "I don't like math" "I can't do math" trigger me so hard too
It's like if I went up to you and said "I don't like to read" "I can't read very well"
Everyone would look at me like I'm a fucking retard
>>319802
Reading is vitally important for everyday life and also not a complex skill.
Math is not important at all and requires retarded amounts of training and the learning basically never ends.
Thankfully we have STEM autists to do the numbercrunching for us humans.
>>319818
Nigger do you not even balance your budget?
Not to mention most of the humanities are completely unnecessary to daily life
That doesn't mean they're worthless even if they're flooded with retards who can't do even basic arithmetic
>>317967
Go have a chat to some analyticals. Which is to say your factual claims are demonstrated wrong.
>>319834
he's baiting you dip
>>319848
I-I know that faggot
H-hahah-hah
>>319818
This, math is just memorization and don't requires talent as in the case of writing. I studied Computer Science for a time at a respectable university and my professors couldn't barely use punctuations or write a phrase without a spelling mistake.
>>319834
>Not to mention most of the humanities are completely unnecessary to daily life
Yes but you don't see anyone getting triggered over "not knowing history" or linguistics or whatever.
The only difference is that math requires far more work (autism), for which they also get paid much more in return so it's not like the system is unfair.
But it's not enough for mathfags, they want to pretend math skills are something normal that everyone can get so they don't feel as autistic. But in the end the fact remains that they're good at it because they are autistic, something normal people are not.
>>319351
People think statistical significance means anything at all
>>317967
because maths is analytical knowledge and does not bring anything new on the table.
>>317980
>Humanities are full of people from the "I hate math" crowd i.e. they are too dumb for logical and rigorous thinking.
>ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ τὸ σύμπαν
>Aeì ho theòs ho mégas geōmetreî tò sýmpan.
>Always the great god brings geometry to the universe.
>ἀεὶ(3 letters) ὁ(1) θεὸς(4) ὁ(1) μέγας(5) γεωμετρεῖ(9) τὸ(2) σύμπαν(6)
>3.145926
Shut the fuck up Stemfag.
>>322800
>I barely studied math at all
>>322823
>humanities are full of
not were
>are full of of implies everyone in them are
for being a philosopher you're sure bad at logic
>>322854
Yes, but it's interesting how you automatically shit on a tradition that literally spawned mathematics and science simply because of it's contemporary members.
Judge the discipline itself, not the people.
>>322862
I was literally shitting on the contemporary humanists if you read the original post in this reply chain.
>>322873
True, you did. But I'm getting tired of listening to people who have no idea what they're talking about talking shit.
I don't go around on this board shitposting about people being retarded for studying STEM.
>>317985
Math doesn't have to be quantitative
mathematical formulas usually don't depict some elements within human nature but a specific fad, cycles. And could be used to manipulate the population by making some things scarce or more available hence not very humane.
>>319724
you realize you're on 4chan, right?
>>319865
you are retarded. I'm a Philosophy student minoring in mathematics, and the reason why I chose to couple them was because I found them to be so similar.
Those who think math is memorization are the fucking retards who couldnt get PAST the memorization to get to the *real* shit. Proofs are more art than math at times. The memorization you're probably referring to is algebra, which is tantamount to learning the alphabet before you can read.
>>317967
Because people in the humanities generally aren't as bright as people in maths-type stuff.
I say that as one of the people who aren't so great at math. I'm a decent critical thinker, but I've never had strong math skills because I mostly couldn't be bothered.
But I recognize that as a flaw and am working to fix it. I also recognize that most people in humanities are pants-on-head retarded and more or less incapable of being unable to tell the difference between a rational argument and an inrrational argument.
>>317967
Not everything can be modelled mathematically., and this is coming from a math grad. Even the model of a small culture of bacteria must be simulated numerically since it's chaotic, and computation complexity grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom a system has.
It's a waste of time to try to make mathematical models for human behaviour/history/economics, since it won't have any predictive power and no new insight would be gained from it. There's a reason humanities are humanities, and not part of the empirical sciences.
>>319865
This. History is just memorization and don't requires talent as in the case of developing new cohomology theories. I studied Anthropology for a time at a respectable university and my professors couldn't bare use the exact homotopy group or lift a homotopy without a logical mistake.
>>317984
Maybe you should come back after you've learned calculus.
>>328631
>Not everything can be modelled mathematically., and this is coming from a math grad. Even the model of a small culture of bacteria must be simulated numerically since it's chaotic, and computation complexity grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom a system has.
>It's a waste of time to try to make mathematical models for human behaviour/history/economics, since it won't have any predictive power and no new insight would be gained from it. There's a reason humanities are humanities, and not part of the empirical sciences.
This. The idea that you can just mathematically model anything, lol, implies you have no experience with actually producing mathematical models of shit.
>This. History is just memorization
Wow. You people don't know anything.
>>328646
You literally sound like an ass right now and probably spend friday nights on 4chan.
>>328631
>It's a waste of time to try to make mathematical models for human behaviour
Isn't this essentially the entire field of artificial intelligence? You really think it's a waste of time?
I know exactly what you're saying though, I was telling this to a friend just a few days ago. It doesn't take much for a system to become chaotic, and human societies and minds are definitely absurdly complex and chaotic. Even if you had a perfect model of human society it might not be useful because of chaos.
The thing is chaotic systems still have limited predictability. It is literally impossible with infinite knowledge and computational power to predict the weather in a year, (or 10 years, who knows the exact number but it's finite), but you can still make useful predictions in the next month or so, with relatively simple models and calculations.
i.e. Just because we won't be able to extract a perfect model from the data doesn't mean we can't get a useful one.
>>328683
perhaps, but your fringe humor only goes to show how 'out of the loop' you are. It wasnt funny at all. Work on your form 2/10
>>328719
>chaotic systems still have limited predictability
why though? What causes this chaos that creates inherent indeterminality? In english though, I want to add it to a 'humemeties' paper im working on.
>>318111
Retard fucking detected. "Natural Philosophy" was also the name of Biology and borders with other sciences only a little more than a hundred years ago. What's left for philosophy departments is the triple of bullshit, philosophy of science and logic.
>>328719
>Isn't this essentially the entire field of artificial intelligence?
Not at all, what have you been smoking?
>>328726
My point was to show how absurd it is to use an anecdote that a professor can't punctuate properly to prove that mathematics is rote memorization. It wasn't intended to be funny; it was intended to be snarky.
I can see you're not in philosophy
>>328737
Look at Lyapunov exponents. What makes chaotic systems chaotic is that two initial values separated by an epsilon of distance will grow exponentially with time. Two points a hair's width apart may end up on opposite sides of the Earth after a short amount of time.
>>328737
If it's a question of determinism, chaotic systems aren't inherently non-deterministic. If you understand the system perfectly, you can predict with absolute certainty its future state.
The problem is humans can never understand any physical system perfectly. When we make a measurement it's only approximate.
Chaotic systems have the property that any uncertainty in the initial conditions, no matter how small, grows larger as time progresses.
Although—this is getting more philosophical than practical—even if we could make perfect measurements, we still couldn't predict chaotic systems because we live in a non-deterministic world, according to the most widely accepted theories in physics. The non-determinism doesn't affect us normally; the macroscopic world is approximately deterministic. But in a chaotic system, the small deviations from determinacy would grow until any prediction of the systems future is no better than a random guess.
If you're asking what causes chaos, it's usually(always?) from non-linear maps or non-linear differential equations. I don't really know how to explain those in a meaningful way to a humanities student.
>>328816
It's a common misconception that quantum mechanics implies indeterminism. Given the ground state and the Hamiltonian of the system quantum mechanics gives you the machinery needed to find any other quantum state at any other time; it's perfectly deterministic. What the caveat is is that quantum mechanics says that the quantum states of a system is all you can say about the system, not its position or momentum or whatever classical quantity else. This isn't in conflict with determinism.
>>328816
this triggers the indeterminist
>>328796
>Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also the name of the academic field of study which studies how to create computers and computer software that are capable of intelligent behavior.
I don't know exactly what issue you're taking with that, but I'm sure it's either ignorant or pedantic. Is it the conflation of 'human' and 'intelligent'?
Or 'mathematical models' with computer software?
The only reasonable objection I could think of is that it sounds like I'm implying AI researchers study humans and try to reverse engineer them.
>>317967
Funny how that article talks about the misuse of statistics with such a small sample size.
It's still fucking ridiculous though. I'm a psych student myself and to me the questions used in that questionnare were brain dead obvious. Dunno about Germany (the location of the study) but where I study they teach us the correct interpretation like a fucking mantra
>>328851
>Is it the conflation of 'human' and 'intelligent'?
>Or 'mathematical models' with computer software?
It's both. Since you know the problem then why do you even ask? Do you know any computer science graduate students currently working in AI? Do you know the problems that plague the field of computation theory and those that plague the study of complex mathematical models? Making a machine that passing the Turing test does not imply that we're able to model human behaviour.
>>328846
this triggers the determinist
>>328872
Why does the volume form dV has the extended reals as the measure? Who the fuck writes a 1 dimensional measure over a multidimentional differential form?
Fucking physicists.
>>317967
It's weird that you would post something about statistics because humanities like sociology and psychology emphasize statistics a lot more than STEM.
Hell I've only had one proba class in all my engineering studies. And even then most engis and physicists just don't use statistics that much, because it's not needed when you have a reductionist approach.
>>328943
Techniques in stat mech are literally being used in nearly all fields of physics.
>>328954
m8 I read papers all day, I can't remember the last time I saw a p-value in a Physical Review B article.
>>328974
Do you even know what stat mech is? No one's talking about p-values here.
>>328866
There's nothing wrong with using computer software and mathematical model interchangeably in a humanities forum, they're essentially the same thing: an algorithm.
AI systems we make may not resemble humans, and the field of AI is not limited to human behavior, but you can't deny understanding humans and creating systems which resemble humans, internally and externally, is a huge motivating factor in the field and the subject of a lot of research.
>>328984
Bruh, I was talking about proba-stats, as in OP's picture. Doing MC simulations have little to do with mastery over significance testing methods.
>>328992
>There's nothing wrong with using computer software and mathematical model interchangeably in a humanities forum, they're essentially the same thing: an algorithm.
This is fucking ridiculous.
>>328803
And I can see youre not fun at parties.
>>329002
Pretty sure experimentalists have to know a bit of prop-stats.
>>329007
Who says I can't be both fun at parties while calling out stupid shit on an Indonesian shadow puppeteering exchange forum?
>>329010
Yeah, but only a bit. The only people I see using some complex statistical models are sociologists, and sometime biologists, because due to the nature of their object of study they have limited control.
Physics experimentalists, on the other hand, try to break down their study to linking one physical quantity to another, so it rarely goes beyond giving a margin of error for a curve, if that. And that is in case they are not just trying to get a proof of concept, in this case who cares about statistics.
>>329004
Why? If you're talking about understanding/predicting human behavior you're talking about having some initial state, and some rules of updating the state. People might call it a 'mathematical model' because it uses quantitative information to model a system. Or they might call it a simulation or software. Either way it's an algorithm that takes in the initial state and spits out a future state.
>>329017
You do because you sound like an ass on a Mongolian horse painting website and probably in real life too.
>>329030
You mean mainly because experiments in physics are compared to theoretical predictions, which has no sampling being done.
Also I forgot to mention that Monte-Carlo is a computational method, not a technique in stat mech. I was thinking more about path integrals and moment generating functionals.
>>329033
Ok. The Navier-Stokes equations is a mathematical model. Try running it as an algorithm in a computer. It won't work; you know why? Because a the existence of a solution haven't been determined yet.
Human behaviour is a much more complex system than fluid flow. If you think that you can just plug some parameters into a model for human behaviour and expect even just something to pop out then you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>329038
>probably in real life too
How did you reach that conclusion? Do you pull anecdotes out of your ass this time too?
>>329076
>If you think that you can just plug some parameters into a model for human behaviour and expect even just something to pop out then you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Please point out to me where I made such a ridiculous claim. Never at any point have I downplayed the complexity of the problem. I used weather as an example of a chaotic system that could still be usefully predicted. You do understand that chaos and complexity are two completely separate concepts?
>>329098
>shifting goalpost
You said mathematical models are the same as algorithms. This implies that all mathematical models can be "run", so to say, which I've shown to not be the case.
Also weather forecast is inaccurate as fuck. It only further demonstrates my point. The only thing you can say with 100% certainty is that there does not exist a point on earth that has no wind, which is a topological result, not a computer scientific one.
>>329098
Not the guy you're replying to, but in this context what would be the difference between chaos and unknown complexity?
>>329121
Ok, you're right, 'mathematical models' can't all be run. But the ones useful to what the layman would call 'modeling' can, or can be approximated. I really don't see your point besides pure pedantry. Frankly, I've never heard the term 'mathematical model' rigorously defined before.
"Inaccurate as fuck" is pretty subjective. There is no doubt weather forecasts are useful to a lot of people.
>>329167
The "approximations" aren't useful. Just look at models in socially and economics. They literally do jack shit except look pretty.
Also look up how much weather forecasts actually predicts the right weather.
>>329124
Complexity is kind of the computational 'difficulty', it's being used pretty loosely here so you can just think of it as the amount of time or computational power it would take to run the simulation.
Chaos is just the sensitivity to initial conditions property.>>328816
It has nothing to do with complexity, simple systems can be chaotic, and complex systems can be not chaotic.
>>329076
Depends which human behavior senpai
>>328854
That's not too small at all.
>>317967
>Why do humanists barely use mathematical models?
Because whenever we try to we just get yelled at.
