[Humanist] 28.735 evidence of value is evidence of worry

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Feb 16 07:23:00 CET 2015


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 735.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:23:09 +0100
        From: Daniel Herzig <danielherzig2014 at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  28.733 evidence of value is evidence of worry
        In-Reply-To: <20150215072358.310A9A05 at digitalhumanities.org>


Dear Willard,

a pretty widespread scepticism towards quantitative-empirical data in
general can be framed in the well-known saying "don't believe in
statistical conclusions that you didn't influence by yourself".

Of course that doesn't affect philosophical discourse about digital
humanities but has great impact on big data processing done within them.
"Mistakes" within the base of a digital, let's say linguistic,
investigation will have by far greater implications than those of a
classic one. A protecting argument would be that these mistakes can be
revised in a very short time though, without having to discard the initial
material.

Best regards,

Daniel Herzig
Vienna

Am 15.02.2015 08:24 schrieb "Humanist Discussion Group" <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 733.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>         Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:30:38 +0000
>         From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>         Subject: evidence of value
>
>
> Many thanks to those who have cited actual evidence for the value of work
> in
> digital humanities to the scholarly disciplines in which it has been
> practiced. I am most grateful. But what really interests me is the asking
> of
> the question rather than good answers to it. I want to know who in the 21st
> Century is asking this question (which has been pestering us since the
> 1960s), from the perspective of which disciplines, and I am particularly
> interested in how the question is asked. The more anxiety in the
> questioning
> the better. For my purposes worries are far more productive than
> contentment however justified.
>
> So, who's nervous, dissatisfied, gloomy about our prospects, and what
> exactly are their concerns? How are they expressing their nervousness? Our
> colleagues in AI and robotics are no less successful today in worrying the
> public than they were decades ago, when the technology was far less
> sophisticated. I say that if we aren't making people nervous then we're
> doing
> something wrong :-).
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital
> Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research
> Group, University of Western Sydney






More information about the Humanist mailing list