Heh, I just hit Reply All and I guess the address came in wrong. Ah, well. I strongly agree with you on the state of linguistics, et al. Having done little bits of work in a few of those fields (or at least work _with_ people in them), your comments are spot on. Though perhaps I wouldn't say that mathematics isn't a science (merely because most fields therein satisfy the scientific method). But my glasses may be just a little rosy. :)
All that said, I find your points insightful. And don't even get me started on the sloppy math in the social sciences. :D A major issue in the matter of theory/practice drift seems (to me, at least) to be the subject matter's ability to assimilate into pop culture and pseudo-scientific meandering. String theory and some of Penrose's works spring to mind. Sapir-Whorf, "relational" databases, and the events (perhaps to be read 'hype') leading up to the AI Winter also come to mind. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say. Perhaps that's just confirmation bias. I may just think of them as examples because they're pet peeves. :D And, naturally, every field wishes it could be mathematics. (Tongue in cheek… mostly) http://xkcd.com/435/ On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:55 PM, wren ng thornton wrote: > (Psst, the nlp list is <n...@projects.haskell.org> :) > > On 7/9/11 3:10 AM, Jack Henahan wrote: >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:53 PM, wren ng thornton wrote: >>> I can't help but be a (meta)theorist. But then, I'm of the firm opinion >>> that theory must be grounded in actual practice, else it belongs more to >>> the realm of theology than science. >> >> Oof, you're liable to wound my (pure) mathematician's pride with remarks > like that, wren. :P > > How's that now? Pure mathematics is perfectly grounded in the practice of > mathematics :) > > I've no qualms with pure maths. Afterall, mathematics isn't trying to > model anything (except itself). The problems I have are when the theory > branch of a field loses touch with what the field is trying to do in the > first place, and consequently ends up arguing over details which can be > neither proven nor disproven. It is this which makes them non-scientific > and not particularly helpful for practicing scientists. Linguistics is one > of the fields where this has happened, but it's by no means the only one > (AI, declarative databases, postmodernism,...) > > There's nothing wrong with not being science. I'm a big fan of the > humanities, mathematics, and philosophy. It's only a problem when > non-science is pretending to be science: it derails the scientists and it > does a disservice to the non-science itself. Non-science is fine; > pseudo-science is the problem. For the same reason, I despise math envy > and all the pseudo-math that gets bandied about in social sciences wishing > they were economics (or economics wishing it were statistics, or > statistics wishing it were mathematics). > > -- > Live well, > ~wren > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
