>>56733>There are enough scientists and engineers that are also not heard.
Which is a problem. Do you have some examples? I think the humanities and social sciences developed explanations to describe these phenomena. Besides money, there are also notions like the attention economy, social relations and images, that interfere with science and its development.
STEM is axiomatic, humanities are not. Nonetheless both humanities and social science operate with empirical data. Their objects of research are part of a/the world. And like STEM they argue for what is the case and what is not. And like in STEM debates occur. STEM are different in that regard as the axiomatic character makes a difference to what is debated most of the time.
>According to the ideal of explanation and understanding, every science searches for inferential connections between facts in the section of reality for which the science is responsible.
>the authors of that book are moving in a circular fashion, as described.
You say it's paradox and a problem. But what if what is just the case, you cannot describe it in the fashion of STEM and deductive logic, because reality in that case doesn't apply to it.
>Classification as a means of keeping/seizing power and so on.
Without reading that will be part of the content I suppose. Yet it should be possible to describe something while being part of it. So you cannot separate yourself from it, ok. Does that change the fact that classification has real life consequences for people, groups, social organization etc? The ideal that is implied in your expectation is that you can neatly separate object and observer, scientist and object of inquiry. There is distance. A distance that cannot be upheld in the humanities where the object is the subject in a sense.
>tech companies and humanities
>It's just not profitable
Well, yeah. Humanities try to explain what is going on but there are interests and also knowledge divergence. Because people like Zuckerberg grew up with certain knowledge. The Californian ideology is the combination of profit and world building, both should be combined according to that entrepreneurial vision, which can be traced into the US counterculture and knowledge that was circulating and mutating there, to use a biological notion. But I will refrain from that in the end, and better use the term of knowledge modification due to circulation and actors that e.g. selectively appropriate knowledge/theories about something etc. And to clear something up: as historian mainly interested in knowledge (which includes sciences), I'm not interested in truth of knowledge (I'm interested in that philosophically maybe), but in what is deemed true historically and not just inside the sciences so to speak, but also outside of it. Which brings me to a theory that is used for that. Performativity, the belief, that action is producing knowledge and social structures etc. One example would be sciences producing boundaries. Scientists have to actively establish boundaries again and again to make sure what their field is about, what does not belong to it (you have to decide what to exclude simply said), the same applies to objects of research, colleagues. Heck, even what is scientific and what is not relies on activity, on performative acts by actors. Money will interfere with that, but not only. These are very subtle observations. But they are frames to explain and argue what is the case. You can also say science consists in geniuses inventing something, but I think we agree this is pretty much a bad explanation that cannot account for much.
>And do you think everything is run by engineers or what? That there is a big engineer boss who tells the engineer mooks to engineer something? Engineers are as much workers as others, just with a different skillset. They solve the problems they are told to. You act like there's some international engineer conspiracy to suppress the great teachings of the historian. In fact I don't think any engineer or scientist would mind hearing what a historian has to say, unless it's the same old "you are oppressing people with your research/why don't you change your whole methodology to make it more appealing to me/why are you using professional language, nobody understand what you are saying".
Ha, the last one I only ever heard people accusing the humanities of. But the basic sets are learned differently then in STEM.
No, I don't think everything is run by engineers. But the engineer is an interesting figure. The numbers of engineers are very high in comparison to other time periods. So the engineer has a certain significance for our times, our world and its shape, don't you think?
At the beginning of the 20th century, perhaps with first steep rise in the 1920s, social engineering was a thing. The realm of the social and the knowledge of engineering were brought together to organize, to shape the social, to regulate it. Mostly by the interest of governments, governments have been interested in regulating the social for quite a long time. Unsurprisingly, the state/governments needs to organize the social. There exist many historic sources that are useful for a historic inquiry on the coming into being of the state, writings on the raison d'etre for example and what to do in order to fulfill it. And likewise, source to check on how that knowledge might have been applied concretely.
btw it might be interesting for you to read about the mediality, or a medial constitution of human beans.
Likewise, big tech has interests and visions, and yes ofc the engineers are workers, a very important note tbh. What I'm interested in his how these workers apply their knowledge and shape the social, technosocial infrastructure and so on. It's more about engineering knowledge, techniques and methods applied, I'm not proposing an evil essence of engineering, less engineers, as you seem to assume. To treat a problem with the knowledge of engineers is different than to treat it with the knowledge of a social scientists. And the difference is important, because it makes the difference in what the world becomes, how things are dealt with and their consequences for social life generally spoken. More concretely the design of apps, the application of engineering knowledge and visions of social engineering as a good thing and intertwine and have effects on teenage life in the west for example. On how we perceive the certain things. For example Tiktoks design allows for a different relation of its user towards each other than on Instagram or Facebook. The whole digital infrastructure has impact on modes of human labor, on the extraction of nature, and what humans can know, how humans organize etc etc. I did not read all the piles of papers and books on how that turns out very concretely but be sure that people have tackled this and can give you examples. Humanities don't have laboratories to test their thesis under ideal conditions freed of messy RL factors that can interfere that research. Humanities might be the attempt to engage with it rather than getting away from it to get make a certain knowledge possible.
>>56733>There are enough scientists and engineers that are also not heard.
Which is a problem. Do you have some examples? I think the humanities and social sciences developed explanations to describe these phenomena. Besides money, there are also notions like the attention economy, social relations and images, that interfere with science and its development.
STEM is axiomatic, humanities are not. Nonetheless both humanities and social science operate with empirical data. Their objects of research are part of a/the world. And like STEM they argue for what is the case and what is not. And like in STEM debates occur. STEM are different in that regard as the axiomatic character makes a difference to what is debated most of the time.
>According to the ideal of explanation and understanding, every science searches for inferential connections between facts in the section of reality for which the science is responsible.
>the authors of that book are moving in a circular fashion, as described.
[Show 14 more lines]