Are the Humanities Doomed?

[spork]

Critical thinking is not a thing. Ask any cognitive psychologist. The use of the term to proclaim the value of any academic pursuit demonstrates just how badly educated many academics are.

Anyone who thinks getting a PhD in any field is training for a financially rewarding and secure career in academia is a fool.

[marshwiggle]

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.

A good artist who had carefully studied Picasso's work might be able to forge a Picasso. A good artist who hadn't extensively studied Picasso's work wouldn't stand a chance, because a convincing fake would require deep knowledge of detail.

Similarly, research fraud is hard to spot when it is committed by an expert in a field who falsifies data, because that person has sufficient knowledge to make it convincing. However, a person outside that field would have no chance because they would be hard pressed to write something that wasn't completely ridiculous, let alone plausible.

The hoaxes were created by people who were not from those disciplines, which is what makes it amazing that they would even get past a journal editor, let alone be accepted by referees since they shouldn't have the knowledge required to say anything coherent, (unless of course that isn't really required in those "disciplines".)

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?

Whoa! Don't go there! How dare you suggest that such a thing could be measured?!

Assert. Assert. Assert. Ad infinitum.

[Parasaurolophus]

I can easily generate a paper on machine learning and AI, and pay a predatory journal to publish it. That would not show that computer science is a fraud infected by PoMo-whatever. All it would show is that I paid a predatory journal to publish junk. But we already knew that predatory journals publish junk.

[marshwiggle]

I can easily generate a paper on machine learning and AI, and pay a predatory journal to publish it. That would not show that computer science is a fraud infected by PoMo-whatever. All it would show is that I paid a predatory journal to publish junk. But we already knew that predatory journals publish junk.

Were those journals just the pay-to-publish kind? My impression was that they were "normal", where articles are actually refereed.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

A good artist who had carefully studied Picasso's work might be able to forge a Picasso. A good artist who hadn't extensively studied Picasso's work wouldn't stand a chance, because a convincing fake would require deep knowledge of detail.

Similarly, research fraud is hard to spot when it is committed by an expert in a field who falsifies data, because that person has sufficient knowledge to make it convincing. However, a person outside that field would have no chance because they would be hard pressed to write something that wasn't completely ridiculous, let alone plausible.

The hoaxes were created by people who were not from those disciplines, which is what makes it amazing that they would even get past a journal editor, let alone be accepted by referees since they shouldn't have the knowledge required to say anything coherent, (unless of course that isn't really required in those "disciplines".)

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?

Whoa! Don't go there! How dare you suggest that such a thing could be measured?!

Assert. Assert. Assert. Ad infinitum.

You know, Marshy, that the Sokal business (now 27 years old and still clinging to the sides of STEMy sorts) was not actually peer-reviewed; that Sokal was asked to revise numerous times by the editors; and that the reason they published the article was because they wanted an actual physicist for their "Science Wars" issue.  In other words, these poor stooges at Social Text were impressed by the credentials of and trusted their author.  I don't think that this relieves them of their basic good sense, but it is hardly what you suggest above.  Remember, "evidence," buddy; you started that trend.

And you also know, no doubt, that Retraction Watch (which you seem to want to ignore) provides anti-vaxxers with exactly the sort of reasoning you demonstrate above---i.e. that scientific journals will publish whatever fits the trendy ideological framework of science at the moment. 

And, of course, there has been a great deal of art fraud easily perpetrated by trained artists, sometimes to the tune or millions of dollars.  Away with Picasso, I guess. 

[downer]

Critical thinking is not a thing. Ask any cognitive psychologist.

That's rather enigmatic. Cognitive psychology believes in rationality. It also spends a lot of time showing how flawed our rationality is.

Do college critical thinking classes really improve students' reasoning abilities in a general way? There have been experiments that cast doubt on that. Students are not good at extending skills in one area to another area.

[Wahoo Redux]

I dunno how much of this is composed of actual scholarly journals and how much is predatory / vanity journals, but Sokal-style stings can be found in virtually every discipline.  I hadn't heard of any of these.

Wikipedia: List of Scholarly Publishing Stings.

[jimbogumbo]

Do college critical thinking classes really improve students' reasoning abilities in a general way? There have been experiments that cast doubt on that. Students are not good at extending skills in one area to another area.

Correct; people do not, not just students. That's what I meant by transfer above. There is a huge literature in psych on that subject.

[marshwiggle]

And you also know, no doubt, that Retraction Watch (which you seem to want to ignore) provides anti-vaxxers with exactly the sort of reasoning you demonstrate above---i.e. that scientific journals will publish whatever fits the trendy ideological framework of science at the moment. 

I'm not sure what point you're making about Retraction Watch. It's hard to see how most science papers would reflect any specific "ideological framework".  If you're specifically referring to vaccine-related work, then it's probably not much different than other research in that early results may turn out to be refuted by later results with a lot more data. That has nothing to do with ideology.

[dismalist]

I hadn't heard of Retraction Watch, so I checked it out. Wonderful! But what worries me more is what should be retracted will not always be retracted.

It's unfair to exclusively attack the humanities for publishing ideological nonsense. The more recent Sokal Squared affair

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

attacked grievance studies subjects by submitting about 14 papers to peer reviewed journals. About seven got accepted, so junk has a 50-50 chance of getting published! [I do remember not knowing anything about the Sokal Affair and reading the first few sentences of the article thinking: "This is junk." as neither a physicist nor a humanist.]

I agree that there can be plenty of confusion about vaccination. Gold standard randomized controlled trials are expensive. We still have too little on it as far as Covid is concerned.

However, physical or natural science is subject to fashion, too, at least in the short run. Global warming is an example, though the IPCC reports have gotten saner over time. The economics of global warming is largely ignored. No bennies for the researcher unless you follow the ideology. Then you might get a Nobel Prize, like William Nordhaus.

So, I wouldn't single out disciplines for producing junk. The phenomenon is much broader, encompassing most of academia.

Last November there was a conference at Stanford about free speech in academia. It's all webbed. There is one talk by avowed left winger Lee Jussim, the social psychologist, describing the situation in academia as a whole. The talk is entitled "The Radicalization of the Academy". It's also very entertaining!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kaFI8JAOvk&t=3s

[Stockmann]

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?

For example, a STEM course might involve distinguishing between truths that are thought to be exact and universal (like conservation of energy), laws that are widely applicable but have exceptions or limitations, laws that are approximations but are sufficiently accurate that in the right circumstances can be taken as an exact truth, laws that are only rough approximations or order-of-magnitude estimates but still useful - as distinct from just plugging in numbers. It may involve deciding that is negligible and what isn't in some circumstances, and looking at what assumptions lie behind an equation or statement - as distinct from just blindly doing algebra. I often tell my students in intro courses than knowing when to apply a law or formula is as important as knowing the law or formula.

Now as to the question of whether an entering college kid who to date still lacks such skills cannot be taught them, why would you think that?

I think that critical thinking skills are a lot like languages - someone who is a true beginner at 18 is unlikely to ever become fluent. Yes, there are exceptions, and basically everyone can polish their skills even if already fluent, including adults, but for most people 18 is basically too late to achieve fluency unless they already have a strong foundation to build on. To truly master a language, you normally have to start young. Likewise I'd say you need a basis to build on in terms of critical thinking when someone reaches college - if they're a true beginner, discussing which courses are better for teaching critical thinking skills is basically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic*. I'd say it applies more generally - cognitive benefits in college are probably going to require a decent foundation to build on to happen (and in many cases, they don't happen).

*Or a bit like lighting a candle vs. sunrise. Better than cursing the darkness...

[Wahoo Redux]

And you also know, no doubt, that Retraction Watch (which you seem to want to ignore) provides anti-vaxxers with exactly the sort of reasoning you demonstrate above---i.e. that scientific journals will publish whatever fits the trendy ideological framework of science at the moment. 

I'm not sure what point you're making about Retraction Watch. It's hard to see how most science papers would reflect any specific "ideological framework".  If you're specifically referring to vaccine-related work, then it's probably not much different than other research in that early results may turn out to be refuted by later results with a lot more data. That has nothing to do with ideology.

That's not what the anti-vaxxers say.

The critique is that bad-science is exactly the product of ideology.  COVID is a hot subject as was climate change.  Scientists were more likely to get their papers published if certain conclusions were reached.  At least that is the argument.

Mind you, I don't buy it for a second, but I just wanted to point out that you are in good company, Marshman.

The point is that the conspiracy theorists and deniers use exactly your rubric for an entire discipline.

[marshwiggle]

And you also know, no doubt, that Retraction Watch (which you seem to want to ignore) provides anti-vaxxers with exactly the sort of reasoning you demonstrate above---i.e. that scientific journals will publish whatever fits the trendy ideological framework of science at the moment. 

I'm not sure what point you're making about Retraction Watch. It's hard to see how most science papers would reflect any specific "ideological framework".  If you're specifically referring to vaccine-related work, then it's probably not much different than other research in that early results may turn out to be refuted by later results with a lot more data. That has nothing to do with ideology.

That's not what the anti-vaxxers say.

The critique is that bad-science is exactly the product of ideology.  COVID is a hot subject as was climate change.  Scientists were more likely to get their papers published if certain conclusions were reached.  At least that is the argument.

Mind you, I don't buy it for a second, but I just wanted to point out that you are in good company, Marshman.

The point is that the conspiracy theorists and deniers use exactly your rubric for an entire discipline.

The proper response should be to encourage vigilance about it in all disciplines, rather than shrugging it off as universal and therefore "normal". (Regarding covid, there was politics involved, in that early on the "lab leak hypothesis" was considered to be racist whereas in the last few months, (now that China is more unpopular for various reasons), it can legitimately be discussed in public.)

[Wahoo Redux]

The proper response should be to encourage vigilance about it in all disciplines, rather than shrugging it off as universal and therefore "normal". (Regarding covid, there was politics involved, in that early on the "lab leak hypothesis" was considered to be racist whereas in the last few months, (now that China is more unpopular for various reasons), it can legitimately be discussed in public.)

Ah, Marshman, the builder of many a Strawman.  Said nothing about "universal" or "normal" anything.

The Wikipedia link illustrates how universal it is, however, and OF COURSE it should not be shrugged off----but to err is human.  This hoaxing business will happen again, probably many times.  We just have to be smart enough to see it for what it is. 

I never saw politics in COVID except for Republican resistance to intelligent and scientific precautions against a public health emergency----very weird.  The lab release theory has always been discussed.  There is a very interesting article here on the Fora somewhere on this very subject.

And last headline I saw indicated that racoon dogs were the source of the virus in Wuhan.

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times: Colleges Should Be More Than Just Vocational Schools

The steady disinvestment in the liberal arts risks turning America's universities into vocational schools narrowly focused on professional training. Increasingly, they have robust programs in subjects like business, nursing and computer science but less and less funding for and focus on departments of history, literature, philosophy, mathematics and theology.

America's higher education system was founded on the liberal arts and the widespread understanding that mass access to art, culture, language and science was essential if America was to thrive. But a bipartisan coalition of politicians and university administrators is now hard at work attacking it — and its essential role in public life — by slashing funding, cutting back on tenure protections, ending faculty governance and imposing narrow ideological limits on what can and can't be taught.