Hi I think the question is complicated by the fact that people in the humanities would differ among themselves with respect to their basic epistemological goals. Certainly historically many people in literature, history, and the like sought a "correct" interpretation of the events they were trying to understand. Hence there would be standards (correspondence with text or historical events, coherence, ...) by which their models would be evaluated and these criteria might overlap quite a bit with those we use in science. Among such people, there would even be people who adopted empirical and quantitative methods to test their ideas.
But there are also people in the humanities and some social sciences (including psychology) who have forsaken the idea of a true characterization for events. The relativistic views of such postmodernists, deconstructionists, and the like would appear to diverge from science at the very outset, leaving little room for correspondences between the two "cultures." Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA >>> "Claudia Stanny" <csta...@uwf.edu> 04-Mar-09 10:48 AM >>> I was struck by this similarity between literary close reading and scientific hypothesis testing the first time I had a serious discussion about how people in the humanities do their scholarly work. Granted, this isn't science, but I think the analysis qualifies as the same sort of evidence-based critical thinking that scientists use when evaluating a hypothesis. For those of us in science, the relevant evidence is empirical data generated from a well-designed study. For those in these other areas, the evidence is the text written by the author. The hypothesis might be something like "Jane Austen uses this metaphor, literary technique, or symbolism to represent xxx." There is a similar type of hypothesis testing that historians use, with text from primary sources (diaries, newspaper articles of the time, etc) as the evidence. There are certainly differences in methodology. But I think they have a legitimate point about the use of evidence. A big difference is what "counts" as evidence. Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Associate Professor, Psychology University of West Florida Pensacola, FL 32514 - 5751 Phone: (850) 857-6355 or 473-7435 e-mail: csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Marc Carter [mailto:marc.car...@bakeru.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:24 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk I have colleagues (I'll let you guess their areas of inquiry) who see no difference between what we do in science and what we do in literary criticism: both (they say) are arguing from evidence, and hence both should be "science." I do not argue with them anymore; I simply smile and go back to eating my lunch. m ------- Marc L Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Baker University College of Arts & Sciences ------- "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it the right way, did not become more complicated." -- Paul Anderson > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:55 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure > up? | Science | guardian.co.uk > > The British Science Council attempts to define science. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-def inition-council-francis-bacon > > In addition to the problem noted in the article (viz., that > the definition doesn't distinguish science from many > humanistic disciplines, such a history), I think the use of > the term "evidence" here is vague. > "Empirical evidence" might have been better. As it now > stands, those who, for instance, use citations from Scripture > as "evidence" for a claim, could also claim to be > "scientists" under this definition. > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > > > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > chri...@yorku.ca > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > > ========================== > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
