Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Humanism, Social science and Natural Science
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHumanism, Social science and Natural Science

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Humanism, Social science and Natural Science
    Posted: January 02 2014 at 08:17
On the University i study there is three faculties, Humanistic faculty, the faculty of social science and and the Faculty of Natural science.

the humanistic faculty has studies such as religion, history, language (english and nordic), lector education, dancing, music, drama and reading science. 

the faculty of social studies have studies such as journalism, economics, nurse, administration, science of state, teacher, and hotel and tourism, 

the faculty of natural science studies such as physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, environmental bio-chemistry, petroleum science, biology.

Im very interested to understand the distinguished differences between the three of them, what are you really studying and for whom, what purpose, is it for the societies benefit, is it for personal benefit, is it for the communities benefit, is it scientifically beneficial .

I study english so im a student of humanistic study, what am i interested in, well im interested in mythology, in language, in historical events, in music, films, and arts, im interested to understand the culture im in and also the cultures I encounter on a daily basis be it in film or news or on travel .  I like to analyze the origin of words, myths, the allegories i find reading books and what outer sources is at use, but i believe first and foremost humansitic studies is for your self-interest. but is at best when you can produce something which will make the reader, viewer or interpreter, take hold of what you've came up to through your research and study, i would be so honest to say that humanistic study is in first hand not really scientific, one can have empirical ratification but studying texts from year 0 is hard to find true sources so lot is left to speculation.

but im fine with humanism being an interpretive study because the society highly needs good analysts researchers  of text, language and film

its about nuances and to see the hidden imagination is important for humans and lot of colorful things can come out of mythology and it is students of humanistic science to read them and use it in films and series, its the study of human mind  understanding of culture and society in all of humanity that is what humanism is all about,  the study
 and understanding of human society, its culture and its products

natural science is about science, of looking forward and to come up with something which in the future is beneficial to me petroleum technology is not that and (specially in Norway) its a short-lived science and it will come out of date when there is no oil or gas left on the planet, and when the environment is all wahooo , basically waste of time, and money, tech has to be beneficial to us, like cell-phone technology, nano-technology, energy-technology, petroleum is not that, when if it can be converted to other fields that will cost more money then to have begun on other fields (> this is more of a complain against Norway, who solely is fixed on petroleum, like a mania and fails to see other ways of technological progress, and development) but i believe petroleum to not be true science but faux science with no scientific beneficial value, ,    
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 11:05
The differentiation between the humanities and natural sciences is actually newer than people think, I think it begun in the early 19th century and didn't really set until Wilhelm Dilthey who based most of his career on establishing a separate set of premises and methodological principles for the "spiritual sciences" as he called them.

Does not help that most of the humanities and social sciences (except to some extent economics) didn't pass Karl Popper's falsifiability criterium for "real science", who completed the job from the other side of the fence.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 11:37
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

The differentiation between the humanities and natural sciences is actually newer than people think, I think it begun in the early 19th century and didn't really set until Wilhelm Dilthey who based most of his career on establishing a separate set of premises and methodological principles for the "spiritual sciences" as he called them.

Does not help that most of the humanities and social sciences (except to some extent economics) didn't pass Karl Popper's falsifiability criterium for "real science", who completed the job from the other side of the fence.
I agree with you on that, what humanities and social science lack as a Scientific study is the element of empirical evidence to satinets,  i think Thomas Kuhn is more applicable to Humanism (music, history, language, religion, drama and arts)  change through developments of ideas since they are idea based rather then empirical studied
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 12:19
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

natural science is about science, of looking forward and to come up with something which in the future is beneficial to me petroleum technology is not that and (specially in Norway) its a short-lived science and it will come out of date when there is no oil or gas left on the planet, and when the environment is all wahooo , basically waste of time, and money, tech has to be beneficial to us, like cell-phone technology, nano-technology, energy-technology, petroleum is not that, when if it can be converted to other fields that will cost more money then to have begun on other fields (> this is more of a complain against Norway, who solely is fixed on petroleum, like a mania and fails to see other ways of technological progress, and development) but i believe petroleum to not be true science but faux science with no scientific beneficial value, ,    

Simply put: no petrochemical technology = no vinyl, no acetate = no Prog.
 
Your specific complaint against petroleum technology is a little narrow. There is more to the technology than simply exploiting the natural resource. Petroleum (and more generally, fossil fuel) is one of the most versatile and useful resources available to us, this apparently simple combination of hydrogen and carbon gives us coal, petroleum (e.g gasoline/benzine, paraffin, kerosene, diesel) , gas (for example: methane, ethane, propane and butane), polymers (ie plastics, such as polyvinyl, polyesters, polyethylene, polystyrene, synthetic rubbers), paraffin, wax, tar, asphalt, solvent, glue, ink, oils and many by-products such as fertilizer, linoleum, perfume, insecticide, petroleum jelly, soap and many medical products. Without these products we would not have the modern world - they powered the industrial revolution, the study of them produced most of the innovation we have experienced over the past 150 years. Without petroleum technology and its study we would not have the wealth to support faculties of humanist and social study, we would not have democracy, social equality, the internet and the mobile phone. 

Sure this not an inexhaustible resource, but without the technology and science to study the marvel of hydrocarbons we will not be able to synthesise the chemistry to replace it. We know there is methane elsewhere in the solar system, on Mars, Venus and Titan so it is more likely to be inorganically produced rather than organically - this gives us a glimpse of the future that your "faux science" can unlock by understanding the nature of petroleum and it by-products. Without the continued academic study and education in petrochemical technology when the oil runs out the modern world will come to an end.



Edited by Dean - January 02 2014 at 18:52
What?
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 12:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

natural science is about science, of looking forward and to come up with something which in the future is beneficial to me petroleum technology is not that and (specially in Norway) its a short-lived science and it will come out of date when there is no oil or gas left on the planet, and when the environment is all wahooo , basically waste of time, and money, tech has to be beneficial to us, like cell-phone technology, nano-technology, energy-technology, petroleum is not that, when if it can be converted to other fields that will cost more money then to have begun on other fields (> this is more of a complain against Norway, who solely is fixed on petroleum, like a mania and fails to see other ways of technological progress, and development) but i believe petroleum to not be true science but faux science with no scientific beneficial value, ,    

Simply put: no petrochemical technology = no vinyl, no acetate = no Prog.
 
Your specific complaint against petroleum technology is a little narrow. There is more to the technology than simply exploiting the natural resource. Petroleum (and more generally, fossil fuel) is one of the most versatile and useful resources available to us, this apparently simple combination of hydrogen gives us coal, petroleum (e.g gasoline/benzine, paraffin, kerosene, diesel) , gas (for example: methane, ethane, propane and butane), polymers (ie plastics, such as polyvinyl, polyesters, polyethylene, polystyrene, synthetic rubbers), paraffin, wax, tar, asphalt, solvent, glue, ink, oils and many by-products such as fertilizer, linoleum, perfume, insecticide, petroleum jelly, soap and many medical products. Without these products we would not have the modern world - they powered the industrial revolution, the study of them produced most of the innovation we have experienced over the past 150 years. Without petroleum technology and its study we would not have the wealth to support faculties of humanist and social study, we would not have democracy, social equality, the internet and the mobile phone. 

Sure this not an inexhaustible resource, but without the technology and science to study the marvel of hydrocarbons we will not be able to synthesise the chemistry to replace it. We know there is methane elsewhere in the solar system, on Mars, Venus and Titan so it is more likely to be inorganically produced rather than organically - this gives us a glimpse of the future that your "faux science" can unlock by understanding the nature of petroleum and it by-products. Without the continued academic study and education in petrochemical technology when the oil runs out the modern world will come to an end.

I am very disappointed in the way the university where i study at, use so much of its resources on the petroleum, i think its wrong politics to give one section of students more then other students,  i find education in reading of texts as important as what you say above, in the global world to be able to understand the world through text and literature, makes the world a better place to live, because, then news and texts wont be seen as dangerous or politicians cant use their powers without, being criticized, so i would investigate money also on analytic science, humanism and social science, along with natural science.  
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 14:01
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Simply put: no petrochemical technology = no vinyl, no acetate = no Prog.
 

I always thought prog was actually more related to another oily substance, snake oil... Tongue


Edited by The T - January 02 2014 at 14:01
Back to Top
refugee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 16:12
These disciplines are all linked through the "mother of science", philosophy. I think it’s a pity that many intelligent people are unable to talk together because they belong to different branches of science. One sad example is biologists and sociologists: Instead of putting their minds together to try to find new answers (or maybe new questions?), they fight against each other, violently defending their own views. That’s pretty sad.
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 16:22
What do they fight over exactly? The vast majority of Biology bears not even a remote relation to Sociology. 

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 02 2014 at 16:23
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 16:51
Originally posted by refugee refugee wrote:

These disciplines are all linked through the "mother of science", philosophy. I think it’s a pity that many intelligent people are unable to talk together because they belong to different branches of science. One sad example is biologists and sociologists: Instead of putting their minds together to try to find new answers (or maybe new questions?), they fight against each other, violently defending their own views. That’s pretty sad.
Philosophy is a toothless charlatan, it is the waste of an intellect, the pastime of profligate. Those who study philosophy should be forced to do menial tasks for minimum wage while wearing name badges and baseball caps... oh wait.

If biologists and sociologists got together they could call themselves Sociobiologists ... oh wait.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 17:08
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

I am very disappointed in the way the university where i study at, use so much of its resources on the petroleum, i think its wrong politics to give one section of students more then other students,  i find education in reading of texts as important as what you say above, in the global world to be able to understand the world through text and literature, makes the world a better place to live, because, then news and texts wont be seen as dangerous or politicians cant use their powers without, being criticized, so i would investigate money also on analytic science, humanism and social science, along with natural science.  
Reading texts will never cure disease, solve the energy crisis, feed the world, stop wars, land a probe on another planet or photograph a galaxy far far away; reading texts would not discover how a starfish can grow a new limb or how plants can take sunlight to fuse carbon from the atmosphere with hydrogen from water to make something solid like a tree or as beautiful as a rose. 

Reading texts has never made this world a better place to live because we are still repeating the stupidity of the past, we never learn from history, philosophy never teaches us anything and all sociology and psychology has ever done is devised new ways to sell us useless crap we never knew we could never live without.

If the humanities and the social sciences want more money they should go out and earn it. Because unless they do then they are merely the entertainment for the idle by the idle. And let us be honest here, most of the humanities are exactly that: mere entertainment.
What?
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 02 2014 at 17:53
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

I agree with you on that, what humanities and social science lack as a Scientific study is the element of empirical evidence to satinets,  i think Thomas Kuhn is more applicable to Humanism (music, history, language, religion, drama and arts)  change through developments of ideas since they are idea based rather then empirical studied


The term paper I've just delivered electronically an hour ago kind of touches on that subject. I'll weigh in tomorrow since my opinions on the subject is very complex and I have a rather busy day tomorrow. (I have to return books to three different libraries in different cities)
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2014 at 05:31
Better late than never...

The division between natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities (or "the spiritual sciences" as they were originally called) goes back to the late 19th century which as an era represented the triumph of mathematically/logically based natural science, engineering, etc. At the very least that was the spirit of the age, and led to the attempted assimilation of the rest of academic activity under the methodology of natural science with the Positivism of Auguste Comte as a prominent example.

Thing is, as Wilhelm Dilthey counter-argued the spiritual sciences' and the natural ones' fields of interest are radically different hence requiring different methodology: The former studies the internal experiences and thoughts of humans as expressed in language (defined rather loosely here), the latter studies the external world as can be measured and weighed mathematically. There are way more subjective factors at play and to much more important degrees in the humanities, and to study them from a completely naturalistic point of view would be to miss the forest for the trees.

I guess that the social sciences would be where the humanities and natural science overlap because of mathematics and statistics' importance, but the exact hows and whys are rather complicated. Within the field of economics for instance, there are several radically different models to explain and predict economic activity that nonetheless all have come under fire for (no matter which set of premises lie behind) assuming humans to act in their rational self-interest all the time. Another example would be Tom Wolfe's quite hilarious essay Sorry But Your Soul Just Died about the sociobiology fad of the late 1990s.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2014 at 06:24
Ermm "Humanism" is not "the humanities" is not "Humanitarian" 
What?
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2014 at 07:24
The two are conflated in the Scandinavian languages, the thread starter being Norwegian and the OP demonstrating that quite well.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2014 at 11:05
Not entirely sure what your question is, but I think every field of study there is valuable. If we think of scientific understanding and technological advancements a skeleton for a society, then we still need culture, history, and flourishing to fill in the muscle and I guess "soul" for lack of a better word. Advancement and understanding don't mean a whole lot to us as humans without some ideology to keep us going. I suppose it's a "design flaw".
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2014 at 12:17
I like studying Humanism, but I have a deep respect and fascination for the sciences. I'm a big fan of anything involving maths.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.