[kilgnad]

None of these fields are in actuality the study of human nature. They are the study of our interpretation of human nature. Interpretations change constantly.

Until we can simulate the brain at the lowest level and have accurate quantitative symbolic theories of higher level structures of the brain derived from the low level simulations... our interpretations will remain largely bullshit and guesswork and thus subject to rapid and constant change.

[munificent]

> They are the study of our interpretation of human nature.

Every study is the study of our interpretation of something.

> Interpretations change constantly.

Yes, that's what intellectual progress looks like.

> our interpretations will remain largely bullshit and guesswork and thus subject to rapid and constant change.

And, yet, because we are human and must interact with humans all the time, we have to do the best with the meager tools that we have to reach as much understanding as we can.

[kilgnad]

>Every study is the study of our interpretation of something.

But there is a clear difference between quantitative results validated by the scientific method versus "interpretations" from philosophy and the humanities.

>Yes, that's what intellectual progress looks like.

Usually scientific results don't change as fast as they do in the humanities. Physical models like gravity, entropy, motion do not change much because of the scientific validation. However, in the humanities any new idea can replace the current idea much more quickly because neither idea has a high degree of verification, thus the humanities are subject to change much more rapidly then STEM.

>And, yet, because we are human and must interact with humans all the time, we have to do the best with the meager tools that we have to reach as much understanding as we can.

Ideally yes, practically speaking this is not exactly what's been going on in the humanities arena of academia. Much of what we're seeing involves heavy radical leftist politics getting embedded these groups.

Not all of the humanities are this way but much of it is. I would look to evolutionary biology and anthropology which are part of the "sciences" to study what it is to be "human" rather than "humanities".

Unfortunately given the nature of what is being studied the high bar of quantitative validation cannot be fully deployed in either of the previously mentioned fields. Instead the fields rely on a limited amount of statistics and logical deduction. This is still a significantly higher bar than most of the humanities.

[munificent]

> But there is a clear difference between quantitative results validated by the scientific method versus "interpretations" from philosophy and the humanities.

True. But that presumes that the scientific method is a superior or perhaps only way to gain understanding. Deciding whether that's true can't be done using the scientific method itself. The humanities (in particular, the philosophy of science) is one framework for evaluating the scientific method itself.

> Physical models like gravity, entropy, motion do not change much because of the scientific validation.

Sure, because atoms are a hell of a lot simpler than brains and societies.