Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Wahoo Redux]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?" 

[marshwiggle]

Herchinger Report: OPINION: Want to save the beleaguered English major? Abandon it.

I am a poster child for the English major. I entered college in 1989 with an interest in human rights advocacy, planning to be a lawyer. I quickly fell in love with poetry in a class I'd somewhat randomly taken on John Keats and William Butler Yeats.

Before long, I immersed myself in literature, philosophy, religious studies and creative writing classes.

A Ph.D. in English from an Ivy League school followed and then a career that more than justified it: 10 years as a professor, author of a well-received book, 15 years leading nonprofit organizations. Most recently, I became a university president.

He's about as representative of humanities majors as Elon Musk is of engineering majors. The high flyers from any discipline will be examples of people doing amazing things that may or may not have anything specific to do with their education.

Showing what lottery winners have done with their money is a way to sell tickets, but it's not a good guide to what most people will experience.

[marshwiggle]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

[Wahoo Redux]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

Evidence?

You just made a typically Marshy blanket statement.

Evidence, Mr. Scientist.  Evidence.

[marshwiggle]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

Evidence?

You just made a typically Marshy blanket statement.

Evidence, Mr. Scientist.  Evidence.

All of the hoaxes previously mentioned were published in "identity studies" journals. That is evidence of a very poor quality of refereeing, which is evidence of poor standards of discourse in those fields.

[Wahoo Redux]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

Evidence?

You just made a typically Marshy blanket statement.

Evidence, Mr. Scientist.  Evidence.

All of the hoaxes previously mentioned were published in "identity studies" journals. That is evidence of a very poor quality of refereeing, which is evidence of poor standards of discourse in those fields.

So out of the 123,443 humanities professors teaching and publishing, you pick a handful of hoax-articles to prove that these folks are "activists?"  These not withstanding, does publishing a researched opinion count as "activism?"

What does Retraction Watch say about science, then?

[Parasaurolophus]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

Evidence?

You just made a typically Marshy blanket statement.

Evidence, Mr. Scientist.  Evidence.

All of the hoaxes previously mentioned were published in "identity studies" journals. That is evidence of a very poor quality of refereeing, which is evidence of poor standards of discourse in those fields.

Sokal is one thing, although as he himself has written, it's often misrepresented as an indictment of the field rather than editorial standards.

But your "gender studies" hoaxers published in obscure journals nobody has ever heard of, as well as predatory journals. If you can't see that, you have no business talking about it, period. The one exception is the piece accepted (but not published) by Hypatia, which mainly summarizes other people's views and applies them to a case. And whatever we may think about the merits of that kind of article (I, for one, think that's not enough to merit publication), it's certainly not ridiculous that such a thing might be accepted for publication after three rounds of R&R, provided it is accurately representing the views in question. The other articles were rejected, including by real journals (such as Hypatia, incidentally).  Far from an indictment of the field, their prank showed that there are real standards and the peer review process works.

[Wahoo Redux]

Obviously as a humanist, and a trained librarian as well, I have my biases, and I really do think the approach to critical thinking skills taught in some, though not all, humanities courses, is superior in general to that in STEM fields, and certainly a good bibliographic instruction course is very good at this as well, but I am willing to be disabused of this-- exactly how does a STEM course go about instructing critical thinking skills?

Well, there's the whole thing about using evidence to support or *refute a hypothesis, rather than just accepting one's own preferred ideas about something. Given the number of humanities faculty that have abandoned this in favour of being "activists", I'd say STEM is more consistent about this.


*No matter how much you like an idea or interpretation, if it doesn't fit the facts, you have to abandon it.

Okay.

Use evidence to support your hypothesis.

How many humanities faculty are now "activists?"

Pretty much all of them in any "<identity> Studies" field.

Evidence?

You just made a typically Marshy blanket statement.

Evidence, Mr. Scientist.  Evidence.

All of the hoaxes previously mentioned were published in "identity studies" journals. That is evidence of a very poor quality of refereeing, which is evidence of poor standards of discourse in those fields.

Sokal is one thing, although as he himself has written, it's often misrepresented as an indictment of the field rather than editorial standards.

But your "gender studies" hoaxers published in obscure journals nobody has ever heard of, as well as predatory journals. If you can't see that, you have no business talking about it, period. The one exception is the piece accepted (but not published) by Hypatia, which mainly summarizes other people's views and applies them to a case. And whatever we may think about the merits of that kind of article (I, for one, think that's not enough to merit publication), it's certainly not ridiculous that such a thing might be accepted for publication after three rounds of R&R, provided it is accurately representing the views in question. The other articles were rejected, including by real journals (such as Hypatia, incidentally).  Far from an indictment of the field, their prank showed that there are real standards and the peer review process works.

Now, now, Para.  Let's not get reason, objectivity, and facts involved (even though we may make all sorts of comments about "evidence" in other places). 

Rather than admitting that we are talking out our wazoos, what we want is blanket indictment extrapolated from a few strange outliers which have been fashioned out of deliberate deception.  Then we want to extend our non-peer reviewed conclusions into a whole field of inquiry about which we know virtually nothing.

I suspect this is how prejudice in general works.

[jimbogumbo]

Between this and the Boaler thread I'm tearing my hair out. I am weary of us as a profession attacking each other's disciplines.

I have heard exactly what mleok claimed. I have heard STEM people say exactly the same about the Humanities. Both points of view are a crock. I also think kay's view about better is far more prevalent in both directions (both of which we can agree cannot be true at the same Time).

NEITHER STEM NOR HUMANITIES DO A BETTER JOB OF TEACHING AND USING CRITICAL THINKING.

Sorry, I lost control there. Critical skills in disciplines are crucial to that discipline, and seldom the same as a different discipline. They are not even the same from one discipline to another in these artificial categories we call STEM and Humanities. There is again a rich literature on transfer in cognitive science, and if I had to some it up succinctly it is that there is precious little between fields. Heck, there is little WITHIN a field.

Someone skilled at critical thinking in higher mathematics is not automatically skilled in chemistry or physics. Someone skilled in English literature is not automatically skilled in history or philosophy.

A well educated student gets a good grounding in as many of these as we can help them get. Period. They then choose what they are good at and interested in.

[dismalist]

Critical skills in disciplines are crucial to that discipline, and seldom the same as a different discipline.

Now that's an intelligent  statement. But there is no justification for anybody to claim to propagate critical thinking skills. I've always thought it's a sham.

The skills that we need in order to be able to think critically are varied and include observation, analysis, interpretation, reflection, evaluation, inference, explanation, problem solving, and decision making.

That's really helpful! A nothing.

[Wahoo Redux]

I have heard exactly what mleok claimed.

Who?  Can you link to it?

And I attack no one's discipline.  My crack about "you will use math every day for the rest of your life" is meant to demonstrate the ridiculousness of demanding utility of an academic discipline and the typical misunderstanding of an academic discipline. 

I am fine with people not attacking each other's discipline.  But the ball is not in my court.

[jimbogumbo]

I have heard exactly what mleok claimed.

Who?  Can you link to it?

And I attack no one's discipline.  My crack about "you will use math every day for the rest of your life" is meant to demonstrate the ridiculousness of demanding utility of an academic discipline and the typical misunderstanding of an academic discipline. 

I am fine with people not attacking each other's discipline.  But the ball is not in my court.

Sorry, I was referring to conversations and discussions at mu campus and some others in the state. It was a frequent topic as we debated requirements and reorganization of colleges.

[kaysixteen]

Regardless of discipline, if an objective of a course is to teach critical thinking skills, at the end of said course, how does one assess whether the critical thinking skills of the students has in fact been bolstered?

[mleok]

I have heard exactly what mleok claimed.

Who?  Can you link to it?

And I attack no one's discipline.  My crack about "you will use math every day for the rest of your life" is meant to demonstrate the ridiculousness of demanding utility of an academic discipline and the typical misunderstanding of an academic discipline. 

I am fine with people not attacking each other's discipline.  But the ball is not in my court.

Sorry, I was referring to conversations and discussions at mu campus and some others in the state. It was a frequent topic as we debated requirements and reorganization of colleges.

For example,

https://lsepgcertcitl.wordpress.com/2021/05/11/can-criticality-exist-in-higher-education-without-the-humanities/

I don't think the sentiment that humanities is uniquely positioned to teach critical thinking, and that students in the sciences would not be exposed to these notions absent any humanities requirements is rather common, and I'm surprised that Wahoo Redux has never encountered it. Put another way, if the argument is being made that humanities needs to be a distribution requirement for STEM and social science students because it teaches critical thinking, then that argument implicitly rests on the assertion that STEM and social science courses fail to do so.

[mleok]

Regardless of discipline, if an objective of a course is to teach critical thinking skills, at the end of said course, how does one assess whether the critical thinking skills of the students has in fact been bolstered?

I personally would like to see evidence that students who are better able to identify sloppy, unsubstantiated arguments, and to point out logical fallacies that are being made.