Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science now

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 16th, 2017, 7:17 pm 

thinker4life » July 16th, 2017, 12:50 pm wrote:[That's not a spelling error; it's a completely different word, [and it's in the linked text - still]]
Christian monks made typos when transcribing the bibles, does that mean the bible is less valuable?

I don't know the value of different editions of the bible. However, every mistake in transcription, as well as in translation, has caused endless commentaries, screeds, arguments, dissensions, even schisms. Words matter. I suppose they matter more to me than to you; that's my job. *
(As the joke goes, many generations [sic] of Catholic priests would probably have been glad if an editor had caught the substitution of "celibate" for "celebrate".)

Perhaps you should consider that other people's life circumstances may impact their ability to type without errors, and be a little less critical in your reading, trying to look at the writer's intent rather than trying to find any fault you can

I thought the central issue was whether the product meets its stated requirements, not what circumstances affect the author's ability to produce something that does. What you have there is a nice expression of personal beliefs with lots of nice quotations. I don't see what it is supposed to do next.


PS - Forest_Dump: On behalf of editors and proofreaders everywhere, I thank you.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Forest_Dump on July 16th, 2017, 8:12 pm 

Serpent wrote:PS - Forest_Dump: On behalf of editors and proofreaders everywhere, I thank you.


Personally when I review papers I have absolutely no qualms about accepting a paper I do not agree with if it is well argued and constructed, etc. On the other hand I will reject a paper I might agree with entirely and even think is very much needed if it is poorly researched, poorly written, etc., and not up to standards. I have had people come up to me and say that they did not agree with me in a paper when it first came out but came to agree with me over time. Why do I think this seemingly superficial aspect os so important? Because, IMHO, if the paper, book, etc., is well written, etc., people are more likely to read it all and not get distracted by the bad writing, think about it and maybe later give it another read. You want your ideas to come through clearly and stand on their own, not be hidden behind a screen of bad grammar and spelling, etc.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8705
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 8:17 pm 

Serpent » July 16th, 2017, 6:17 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 16th, 2017, 12:50 pm wrote:[That's not a spelling error; it's a completely different word, [and it's in the linked text - still]]
Christian monks made typos when transcribing the bibles, does that mean the bible is less valuable?

I don't know the value of different editions of the bible. However, every mistake in transcription, as well as in translation, has caused endless commentaries, screeds, arguments, dissensions, even schisms. Words matter. I suppose they matter more to me than to you; that's my job. *
(As the joke goes, many generations [sic] of Catholic priests would probably have been glad if an editor had caught the substitution of "celibate" for "celebrate".)


I apologize if I insulted your profession, not my intent. I do get a little sloppy with spelling errors when I'm sleep deprived, and I would appreciate if you'd correct them in a friendly way without animosity given the circumstances. If you're unable to do that, I'd prefer that you ignore them. If you prefer to point them out caustically in the future, I'll just ignore your comments.

Perhaps you should consider that other people's life circumstances may impact their ability to type without errors, and be a little less critical in your reading, trying to look at the writer's intent rather than trying to find any fault you can

I thought the central issue was whether the product meets its stated requirements, not what circumstances affect the author's ability to produce something that does. What you have there is a nice expression of personal beliefs with lots of nice quotations. I don't see what it is supposed to do next.


PS - Forest_Dump: On behalf of editors and proofreaders everywhere, I thank you.


Thanks for taking the time to read what I've written. As I said the intent was to come to a consensus between different people -- who may have very different political beliefs -- of "guiding principles" that we can agree on by consensus because they are approachable to people from all walks of life who are respectful and appreciate freedom. While they are my personal beliefs, I would ask whether these personal beliefs resonate with you... I would ask someguy1 if these personal beliefs resonate with him. Given you both have different political leanings, my goal would be to get both of you to agree on these guiding principles so we can try to make progress towards some goal we have in common, rather than just insulting each other constantly for thinking differently about things. My goal is to create common ground... Clearly I'm not doing it so well, but at least please give me credit for trying to do something that most people aren't trying to do... Most people just defend themselves and their beliefs and ignore the opposition... I'm trying to create common ground and consensus in a country - perhaps a world - that's very divided.

Clearly I'm not doing it so well, but if you bear with me and think about my intentions in a positive light I'd appreciate your feedback about how I can make the list I created more approachable and useful to all rational people who believe in individual freedom and mutual respect for other people.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Braininvat on July 16th, 2017, 9:45 pm 

What about rational people who don't believe in individual freedom? If you had a manifesto that could reach them, then you'd really have something. Or irrational people that do happen to believe in individual freedom (a dangerous combination, one that we're familiar with in the USA). No sense writing something that only targets people who already agree with you. Reach out to those tenants who don't embrace your tenets.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5387
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 16th, 2017, 10:04 pm 

thinker4life » July 16th, 2017, 7:17 pm wrote:I would appreciate if you'd correct them in a friendly way without animosity given the circumstances.

Suggesting you look up 'tenant' and 'tenet' is not all that hostile.

. While they are my personal beliefs, I would ask whether these personal beliefs resonate with you... I would ask someguy1 if these personal beliefs resonate with him.

Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you.

Clearly I'm not doing it so well,

Agreed. I don't think you're ready for Phase 2.
That's an opinion, not an attack.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 16th, 2017, 10:30 pm 

Braininvat » July 16th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote:What about rational people who don't believe in individual freedom? If you had a manifesto that could reach them, then you'd really have something.



Even a seemingly universal value like 'freedom' turns out to be an essentially contested concept which means different things to different people. And in many cases different groups may share the same values but prioritize them differently and that alone will lead to irreconcilable schisms in the body politic. Politics is mostly a struggle of conflicting values, not a dispute over facts.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 16th, 2017, 10:40 pm 

I should clarify that last bit - many political quarrels are ostensibly factual disputes but the truth is most of the time none of the factions are actually interested in the facts, if the facts are on their side then great but even if they weren't it wouldn't slow them down any. Everybody wants science on their side but hardly anyone is on the side of science.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
BraininvatBioWizardSerpent liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 20th, 2017, 8:00 pm 

Sivad » July 16th, 2017, 9:40 pm wrote:I should clarify that last bit - many political quarrels are ostensibly factual disputes but the truth is most of the time none of the factions are actually interested in the facts, if the facts are on their side then great but even if they weren't it wouldn't slow them down any. Everybody wants science on their side but hardly anyone is on the side of science.


I don't disagree with you Sivad, but I am the exception to this rule. I want facts on my side. Here's a quote I like to share which I got from a friend:

“let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.” - Aurthur Martine, 1866
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 20th, 2017, 8:57 pm 

thinker4life » July 20th, 2017, 5:00 pm wrote:
Sivad » July 16th, 2017, 9:40 pm wrote:I should clarify that last bit - many political quarrels are ostensibly factual disputes but the truth is most of the time none of the factions are actually interested in the facts, if the facts are on their side then great but even if they weren't it wouldn't slow them down any. Everybody wants science on their side but hardly anyone is on the side of science.


I don't disagree with you Sivad, but I am the exception to this rule. I want facts on my side. Here's a quote I like to share which I got from a friend:

“let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.” - Aurthur Martine, 1866


I think your ideas and intentions are really great, the world definitely needs this perspective. I really mean that, it's not just a bullshit blow off. I don't think you're going to completely revolutionize the sausage-making but I have no doubt that you'll have a positive impact if you keep at it. I definitely don't want to discourage your effort, grand projects may not ever fully succeed but the better ones do at least slightly alter the trajectory towards a somewhat better course. So my best heart felt advice is to carry on full blast, pick up all the momentum you can and impress your perspective as deep and as wide as possible. Fookin-A to you, my friend.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 21st, 2017, 7:09 pm 

Sivad » July 20th, 2017, 7:57 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 20th, 2017, 5:00 pm wrote:
Sivad » July 16th, 2017, 9:40 pm wrote:I should clarify that last bit - many political quarrels are ostensibly factual disputes but the truth is most of the time none of the factions are actually interested in the facts, if the facts are on their side then great but even if they weren't it wouldn't slow them down any. Everybody wants science on their side but hardly anyone is on the side of science.


I don't disagree with you Sivad, but I am the exception to this rule. I want facts on my side. Here's a quote I like to share which I got from a friend:

“let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.” - Aurthur Martine, 1866


I think your ideas and intentions are really great, the world definitely needs this perspective. I really mean that, it's not just a bullshit blow off. I don't think you're going to completely revolutionize the sausage-making but I have no doubt that you'll have a positive impact if you keep at it. I definitely don't want to discourage your effort, grand projects may not ever fully succeed but the better ones do at least slightly alter the trajectory towards a somewhat better course. So my best heart felt advice is to carry on full blast, pick up all the momentum you can and impress your perspective as deep and as wide as possible. Fookin-A to you, my friend.


Thanks Sivad. I've had dozens of people I've shared this paper with in person feel similarly to you -- they helped me refine it and improve it, and I plan to continue to share it and refine/improve it as I do. I will continue to do so with those open minds that choose to try to work collaboratively to make the world a better place. Would love any feedback you have or if you feel anything is misplaced or can be improved I'd value your input.

The pessimists can stay still, but I will move forward with those who join me.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Previous

Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests