How do humanities articles differ from stem articles in your country?
>>7950862
humanities articles are better grammar and vocabulary.
stem articles are written by 12 year-old who can hardly speak but yet manage to think that they are pedagogical in their communication. Their topography is equally awful, since they think that it is enough to use latex to have a good article. The best part is when they leave a baseline stretch of 2.
Now the content. The stem kids think they have content because they cling to their fantasy of the relevance of the formal deductive reasonings, with a bit of induction to validate their speculations.
The humanities people at least do not pretend to discover the truth and bring it to the plebs. They share their opinions and know the limit of their endeavor.
The stem kids get butthurt very quickly from the way the people humanities communicate. But then nobody cares much about what stem kids talk about, since hardly anybody is willing to embrace their autism.
>>7950896
>implying humanities students aren't plebs themselves
>>7950896
this is pretty nice, I appreciate the effort into crafting this
>>7950948
me too
bumpo
>>7950896
keked.
Ok, maybe I should try harder to bring my autism to the plebs. So maybe we get more MINT-people. At least they're doing something useful.
>>7951828
>At least they're doing something useful.
what do you mean by useful ?
>>7950862
STEM publications will be like 3 journal pages long
Humanities will have 100 pages of literature review, just in case the people reading have no idea what you're talking about
>>7952933
kek, please don't tell me you think the difficulty of publishing a longer humanities article is even close to publishing a 'small' STEM article.
>>7951828
>At least they're doing something useful.
Useful refers to some goals. And there is no goal for the scientists.
>humanities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCRxxb_rwY
>>7952929
anyone have that pic where the undergrad is like "I'm going to research anything I want!", then its the grad student is like "I'm going to research what my advising professor is researching!", then the assistant professor is like "I'm going to research what my tenure committee wants me to research!", then the Professor is like "I'm going to research what my grant institution wants!", then the emeritus professor is like, "I'm going to research whatever I want!", and then tombstone.
>>7953484
GradeA is a fucking moron though. Chav cuck
the goal of the scientists is just more models and more pleasures.
Humanities:
http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/
> Secondly, I argue that carbon fiber can be a homosocial surface; that is, carbon fiber becomes both a surface extension of the self and a third party mediator in homosocial relationships, a surface that facilitates intimacy between men in ways that devalue femininity in both male and female bodies. I examine surfaces as material extensions of subjectivity, and carbon fiber surfaces as vectors of the cultural economies of masculine competition to which I refer.
Science and Engineering:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.1881
>We present a construction method for the gondola based on carbon fiber reinforced polymer tubes with aluminum inserts and aluminum multi-tube joints. We describe the validation of the model through Finite Element Analysis and mechanical tests.
There's a huge difference.
the two fields have different goals and different methods.
>>7950896
>you can't know anything, it's all opinion maaaan
>he says while automatically placing his full confidence in the correct functioning of technology and modern medicine which is all based on scientific investigation
lol humanities and philosophy students are so desperately butthurt.
They're butthurt that most of their subjects are no longer important or of great utility and that anyone can make reasonable logical arguments about the shallow things they study while they are woefully ignorant and inadequate at the rigorous logical reasoning needed for science and mathematics.
To try and soothe this butthurt they claim that everything is just an opinion , maaaan, and that positivism doesn't work, even though their lives benefit everyday from what positivist methodology, the scientific method, has provided.
>>7952966
i didnt say anything about the difficulty. I only noted how humanities publications are typically very long as they have enormous literature reviews compared to the chem/ bio/ genetics papers that i have read throughout my education
>>7955909
>scientists are here to give me pleasures
The sciences are like the religions: purely built by humans in order to tell stories to ''understand'' the world.
>>7956005
But one is based on empiricism and the scientific method
>>7956014
exactly, the scientists love to think of themselves as good empiricists, and choose to spend their time trying to connect back their speculations to some empirical world, precisely because they know that their speculations are infertile, yet they cannot bear not to dwell in their mental proliferations, instead of remaining on pure empiricism which they despise (they think they would get bored).
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. Empircism, in science, is here for the scientists to feel justify to claim that ''if my little deductive model is verified through my measurement, then my model describe some part of the universe'').
Induction is meant to fail, which leads people to have faith in refutability: if it does not work once, it will never work, which is still inductive, therefore completely dubious .
On the contrary, to be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations.
scientists know that their concepts and abstractions are purely induction, but they still cling to their formalization, this is why they choose to stuff their models with as many deductions as possible. scientists choose to think that, contrary to the inductions which are seen, by them, as personal, contingent, dirty, the deductions are less personal, cleaner, objective.
Since scientists and other rationalists have no justification of their claims, they choose the path of the (intellectual) terrorism in claiming that ''only the religious sheep and the degenerate empiricists, skeptics, relativists, solipsists do not agree with us; plus science give us rockets and cars and computers... see how science is good ! less pains and better pleasures for everyone, thanks to us, the good rationalists ! Science totally works guys, we are spot on defiling empiricism with our rationalism, trust us !''.
>>7957605
so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:
-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you, because the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)
>>7957606
the conclusion is that
-no knowledge will be gained from your speculations, labelled scientific or religious or philosophical.
precisely because your imagination is not really meant to be connected back from your five senses.
Scientists and any rationalist choose to think that a few of their favourite speculations, mental proliferations will lead them to truth about the world, will be ''validated empirically'' (after they invent the notion of ''validation'').
Why? because Scientists are hedonistic and love their hedonism. hedonistic people live through entertainment, which brings the most pleasures with the least discomfort. hedonism is the nihilism and most people rely on their speculations about the future, from the past experiences, to enhance their hedonism.
-the notion of irreversibility, necessity, certainty is present in pure empiricism, but the rationalists despise this, because, being hedonistic, they choose to think that empiricism leads you to boredom and sterility (to reach certainty). This is not the case, empirically, since as soon as you no longer care about what you think, you access a new world, free of speculations, where for once you no longer rely on induction (nor on the fantasy of deduction). You are concious directly of what people would call ''knowledge''.
>>7950896
4/10
>>7957605
>''if my little deductive model is verified through my measurement, then my model describe some part of the universe'
>>7950896
hey guys we found the liberal arts major
>>7957653
I want /lit/ to leave desu
>>7950862
mfw this thread
>>7950862
People literally think that proofs and numbers exists without humans, just like other people claim that Harry poter exists without humans, just like other people claim that God exists without humans. This is where we are in 2016....
What seems to last forever is the stupidity of the humanity to cling to the notion of eternity.
>>7950896
>Humanities
I like watching history shit and reading Dostoevsky. Would I want to do it for a living? No. I'd like to actually solve problems and build things.
Humanitiescucks have their own board now. Why are you here?
>>7950862
They don't. Both are irrelevant to the real world backwater bullshit padding. Cheers from Poland, 25 years of "democracy" and still irrelevant!
>>7959570
>numbers dont exist without humans
:^)?
>>7960504
do you not have zizek in you country ?
>>7951807
>>STEM articles are fact based
wow
>>7952933
>>Humanities will have 100 pages of literature review,
nah
>>7962256
kek
>>7950896
>posts picture about sophists and platonists
Science is based on empiricism.
