Why are humanities so bad at stats?

What "Humanities" claim that humans cannot be explained by science?

The ones that reject the idea that human behavior can be explained by natural laws due to free will, which is by definition all of them, hence "Humanities."
Even the graphic in the OP contrasts "social science" with "science."

But actually scratch that. None of them *claim* to be non scientific, they just simply are due to the fact that they follow the humanistic paradigm. They still pretend to do science though and I will not deny that sometimes they really do and their work ends up being valuable, but most of the time their theories are based on unfalsifiable principles like the patriarchy, because they were never thought the basic rules of forming a valid scientific theory.

In most faculties of the Humanities (at least in Central Europe) the basic rules of scientific work (like falsifiability) are not being thought to undergraduates. Even the mere notion of objectivity gets rejected often due to the influence of Postmodernists. Add in the fact that there is the idea that science *should* have a political agenda and you get the current trend of worthless art degrees being handed out by the hundreds of thousands every year.

So all of philosophy is worthless because it isn't empirical?

>morons actually think all of social science is always feels and bad stats at all strata

Have fun boys, I'll be running neutron activation analysis and coprolithic studies and trace element localization to test my hypotheses on all these grave goods.

So all that isn't empirical automatically is philosophy?

Humanities really suck at empiricism these days because they generally think Plato>Aristotle

generally of course, there's some cool data analysis done by research librarians these days since we now have the technology to process a lot more data.

I bet most of those CEOs and parliament members graduated in humanities are mostly law, psychology, and maybe philosophy, and hardly any in the "arts" or gender studies, that are mostly the majors that people actually mock when they mock the humanities.

In the US, the difference between "of science" and "of arts" is very literally 4 elected classes when considering a Bachelor's. You have NO idea what you're talking about.

There's also about 1/4th as many STEM majors as humanities majors so the rate is much lower for humanities majors

And all of these categories are very small and not realistic for pretty much any typical major in anything. I don't know if they are cherry-picked or not, and it isn't clear what influence their choice of degree had on their career.

>there's only one university in the us

>coprolithic studies
Yeah have fun playing with turds.

Humanities are a meme. If you really want to "be well rounded", get a serious major and do a humanities minor, or just take a bunch of different humanities classes as electives based on what interests you. Don't waste time on a degree that requires you to either go to grad school or be charismatic/well connected in order to get a decent job.

Do you use Google faggot?

...

Also, is mathematics worthless?

Most BA degrees in the US are garbage and worthless for the job market.

>implying any employer cares about BA vs BS
Wew

>I follow the postmodern paradigm and thus do not claim any objectivity to my work. Everything that follows is my subjective point of view :^)

Claiming to work in a "postmodern paradigm" should automatically make one fail.

It would be like saying "I work in a modern paradigm so everything I say is rational and objective."

It doesn't follow. Anyone who has studied these subjects would know that "postmodern" is an umbrella term of severely different incompatible thinkers, just like "modernism" is, and they are not necessarily subjectivist relativists.

I call bullshit. Sounds like what a cultural marxist conspiracy theorist would say about the humanities without ever having studied or been in contact with them.

>Why are humanities so bad at stats?
Because nowadays a formation in the humanities is just a scam aimed at easily printing degrees to sell to first world morons. It's not an issue of the fields as much as of the centres of formation.

I agree it's bullshit but it's also very real. The quote was not some satire I made up for emphasis, it was literally what was said in the thesis I read. I would take the time to upload here so you can see for yourself but it's not in English.
Yes it's an extreme example but I've read a lot of papers with similar contents.

Clifford Geertz started an interpretative approach in anthropology for example and his students took it to extremes and created something that is now literally called the postmodern paradigm of anthropology. You can google it if you find it hard to believe. James Clifford basically said if you're a cis white male scientist you're not qualified to write about other cultures, but you may publish the works of said cultures people and claim their work to be scientific.

You're right of course, not all of them are subjectivist relativists.

>postmodern paradigm of anthropology
When reading about this it just seems like American appropriation of European philosophy and thus should be disregarded since they will necessarily be influenced by their American standpoint. :^)

Well, but to be fair:
Being a truth relativist doesn't really imply that they don't believe in an objective truth (strong truth relativism does). And realising that we are imposing our own values as ethnographers doesn't seem too bad either.

You seem to present a much stronger position than they are actually advocating. If you have any literature I could read on this (I have studied some basic social anthro) it would be great.

I am shocked that anyone would assign themselves the term "post-modern" though.
It would be like someone starting adopting the word "feminazi" as a serious position.

>literally called the postmodern paradigm of anthropology

Anthropologist here. Well, archaeologist, but it's a subfield in the wider category.

You have no idea what you're talking about, man. There's no unified "postmodern paradigm" in anthropology, and no one with any sense would claim there is. Since the 1980s, there's been a number of new theoretical trends influenced by postmodern thought, but they're all quite different and only lumped together very broadly/roughly because of when they appeared in time. Even a basic intro class would teach this stuff. Sometimes you'll hear people talking about postmodern trends or postmodern though in anthropology, but again, it's never meant to represent a single, unified theoretical stance. It's a generally understood fact in the field that contemporary theoretical paradigms are all over the place and they can't be talked about the way you describe.

Does this mean I can point out all bad writing by STEM?

I don't understand the autistic obsession people have with STEM

I must admit, I'm getting a degree in STEM, but I was good at science and math in high school, there are literal retards out there who think everything but STEM is trash yet they are, as I said before, literal retards

There needs to be a balance. South Korea has like 25% of people getting STEM degrees and those motherfuckers aren't all engineers once they get out of college

>You can get a social science degree without ever getting confronted with scientific theory

maybe on your country

>I have seen master degrees being handed out based on theses that started with: [gibberish]

what's the fucking point? how can you claim scientific objectivity in theology? or when you're researching shit like hegel's or jung's mysticism?

all you have to do is source everything you write, of course the rest is interpretation. you start with other people's thoughts and expand on that.

correct sourcing and scientific standards are literally the first thing you learn in your first semester, in virtually any degree.

>Humanities really suck at empiricism these days because they generally think Plato>Aristotle

my experience has been the exact opposite desu

t. chipotle enthusiast

>James Clifford basically said if you're a cis white male scientist you're not qualified to write about other cultures, but you may publish the works of said cultures people and claim their work to be scientific.

you've never read geertz in your entire life my man. stop fucking pretending.

>And realising that we are imposing our own values as ethnographers doesn't seem too bad either.

this is really what geertz is saying.

>James Clifford basically said if you're a cis white male scientist you're not qualified to write about other cultures

this is just some /pol/ lingo gibberish

essentially geertz is trying to make researchers aware of their own biases so they can produce superior results

maybe in your country*

A lot of humanities and social sciences are bad at objectivity. Political agenda exists in the other sciences but there's a much larger proportion of ulterior motives and agendas in the humanities and social sciences and really make the all the fields and their subfields look bad as a whole.

The thing that sets the two apart the most is the amount of discrediting of those obvious biases. Vaccines & autism and gobal cooling are fringe and largely discredited by other studies.

On the other hand Psychology still worships Sigmund Freud though even though it's clear that he was first and foremost interested in keeping his clients hooked and creating a name for himself. He didn't even apply his own theory of fixation to his cigar chewing habit.

Yes and I'd like it to stay that way. Engineers can fuck off.
t. Math grad student.

>the fact that the "Humanities" claim that humans cannot be explained by science, which is simply not true, making most of what they teach a waste of time.
Honestly, you don't really understand it. It's not that "humans cannot be explained by science" a stupid argument one of your teachers probably told you and you're just repeating it. What Humanities do tell, is that human thought will constantly change, and what we think as scientific accurate at the moment is subjective. Why? Because even if science was built to be as impartial and objective as possible, it is impossible for it to achieve that. The reason is simple, human beings are subjects, thus, we will interpret object based on our personal contexts and each of us will see the same object in a different perspective, even if it is a minor difference.

In other words, it's not that humans cannot be explained by science, but that science will alway be reinterpreted by humans and the explanation will never be truly objective.

Oh man, hey guys! Look, we have a time traveler from the XIX century here who thinks that humanities and social sciences are worthless because they don't use the scientific method!

Doesn't it suck that he doesn't understand the 150 years of development of humanities and social sciences? Well, it can't be helped, dinosaurs like him will always be trapped in the past.

B-but markov models are comfy

>A lot of humanities and social sciences are bad at objectivity.
Objectivity is impossible. What you want to say is "impartial" and "critical". You also need to say "a lot of humanities and social sciences ACADEMICS", because you're making a huge generalization of these disciplines. You should point out the individuals who are not critical, not the sciences because the disciplines are built with being critical and impartial.

>On the other hand Psychology still worships Sigmund Freud

Oh dear, another XIX century time traveler. One thing is saying that psychologists still study Freud and another thing is saying people worship him.

That's not really true either.
Sciences/philosophy, after the enlightenment, have split into some different categories which didn't exist before.
Social sciences (dealing with humans etc.)
Life sciences (biology, dealing with life).
Natural sciences (dealing with nature).
They are distinct because they investigate severely different beings. How to approach each field is different and each field has their own scientific method.
Philosophy, social sciences and some other stuff got lumped together as "the humanities." Because it didn't have, what they perceived at the time, a good empirical ground.
Today the social sciences is empirical and the humanities in general isn't empirical. So a subfield of the humanities has a good empirical basis.
For whatever reason maths/logic got the status of a natural science when it is clearly philosophy.

No one really worships Freud any longer. Even though some appreciate his groundwork, pretty much everything he said is neglected.

I agree to this.

t. Maths/phil student.