[johndoe42377]

Obviously no.

It is a stupid idea from Jungian and Froidian "psychology" that symbols have been invented once and then propagated everywhere, and that this supposed propagation is an evidence of migration pathways and relationship.

Same stupidity goes with linguistics - if something is called by the same name in the different parts of the world, there must be an infallible evidence of migration and relation.

No, everything related to the constraints of the environment (Nature) has been invented many times independently. Basic symbols based on geometric shapes too.

[tt433]

I fail to see how this is "obvious." By the logic that nature invents things many times, isn't it possible some humans at some point did this? Obviously they didn't call it "hot pot," the article doesn't actually suggest that, it's used as a shortcut in a headline to communicate a point. Your suggestion of a link to Jung and Freud makes no sense to me...

[johndoe42377]

Generally speaking, humanities was a mistake. These "scientists" memed the main principle of science from scientific evidence to scientific, or more precisely - sectarian consensus.

Peer review is not by any means criterion for even approximation to the truth. The article in question should have been reviewed exactly like I did.

[tt433]

You didn't read the article clearly and you're ranting about unrelated things

[gota]

You'll excuse me when I say you sound like you have zero experience at reputable levels of academic "humanities".

Humanities are not exact sciences for a single reason - they comprise too many variables for a primate brain to reason about. There's no god mandated set of borders defining "types" of science.

There are fields so complex that they have to be dealt in so high an abstraction level that we call them subjective. Absolutely does not mean that the objects they study are unworthy of study. Precisely the opposite, in fact.

Also does not mean that, even if a portion of people are faking, there are no valuable insights coming from the scientific field.

I'll point out that there are a huge number of "fake efforts" in the hard sciences as well. Cost of doing science at scale with bad incentive engines.

Finally, if your issue with the "humanities" is with a perceived politization of the academia, I'd suggest formally educating yourself in those subjects and taking a place in said politics instead of, you know, acting like a reactionary teen or twentysumthin. No offense, but complaining about politization from the outside is a useless venting effort.

[jfengel]

The 19th and 20th centuries were extraordinary periods where "hard" sciences gave us amazing things, but technologists like the ones on this site are often fooled into thinking that those are the only things that matter. Any problems involving human beings are theoretically "reducible" to physics problems, and therefore only physics matters -- even if we don't actually know how to perform that reduction.

Questions of how human beings organize and treat each other are immensely complex, and of enormous importance. They're incredibly hard to study, and what study we can do is only in its infancy. But it's equally infantile to declare that it's irrelevant. And oddly, for people who pride themselves on their intellectual prowess, those who do tend to make it on the basis of a cursory "study" rather than serious engagement.

[johndoe42377]

I suggest not to assume anything about other people.

I have studied religions among other things, so I know very well what sectarian consensus is and how exactly it works to maintain a high social status.

Humanities and theoretical"sciences" are sects by every possible definition.

I have studied philosophy too.