[maweki]

Provocative title. The author argues - more or less - that quantitative and mathematical approaches do not lend themselves to questions of the humanities or social sciences.

As an example they take a network analysis that was done on social relations of characters of fictional works. While the author finds this use dubious, I think it's the contrary. While the researchers might not fully understand the methods, they could very well have a mathematician on hand. What do we do in math if not model real problems of real people?

It might be nice for some people to not know an application of their research but for humanities to find novel ways in which to use mathematical tools is great and should be encouraged. Of course they will miss but they will also hit. We need a peer review where those methods are understood within the humanities and social sciences, in order to not draw false conclusions.

Of course, qualitative analysis isn't going the way of the dodo and the author agrees on that.

I just think the occasional misuse of mathematical models for humanities research is well worth the possible gain. Those problems should follow some rules with a mathematical models, right??? Let's help those researchers instead of banishing them to qualitative methods.

[tropdrop]

I don't think the author is arguing for a banishment of certain authors "to qualitative methods." The problem described in the article is one I frequently see in Silicon Valley - ok, a couple of engineers build a thing. Note how they didn't start from asking "what is a real problem?" No, they built some tool/app. Now they spend several investment cycles trying to find "product market fit" by attempting to find some place in the market where that thing solves a real problem. This very rarely works as a business strategy - you first need to find a real problem and then build a tool that solves that problem.

Problem -> so what? (we build a solution) -> real business.

Now, replace "app" with "mathematical modeling," and you'll start to feel the author's gripe.

I do think the author is right to ask - what is the point? So what? What are you trying to do with those mathematical models? What problem are you solving? For instance, we have the hypothesis that the researchers of the British paper posited:

> the relative likelihood that certain stories are originally based in real-world events

Based on:

>looking at the (very complicated) mathematics of social networks

So, we have a tool - that tool is looking at the mathematics of social networks. Does high fidelity between models of social networks predict "realness?" Does a certain model of a social network described in the relationships of protagonists in a book suggest that book's events are accurate historical ones?

No, right? Then why is that step glossed over when the researchers go ahead and start modeling anyway?

[cycomanic]

The laser was famously named "a solution looking for a problem", many times in science we build theories/experiments/devices without solving a problem, but instead found many problems in hindsight where the theory could be applied (and many others where it could)

So I see science at work, nothing to see here.

[catgary]

Many tropes in fiction can be boiled down to weird/unnatural social networks. I’m not convinced it’s a bad paper, in fact I’m worried the author of this post is being unfair to what seems like a pretty harmless/fun digital humanities paper.

[AnimalMuppet]

If you reduce the humanities to what is quantifiable, you kill them. (You also kill humanity.)

[Edit: After re-reading, I'm not sure the parent thinks that numbers should take over the humanities, so my comment may be misdirected. I'm leaving it anyway, because I think the point is valid, even if it doesn't address the parent's point.]

[wussboy]

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?