Humanities #fail

They have failed to provide their methods to the people, although there is a huge demand!

Let me focus on the software business here. Problems in software development don’t arise from technical difficulties. There are huge deficits in basic hermeneutic competences. Basic ideas, like the influence of context on meaning and understanding of things seems to be a completely new idea for many contemporaries.

The conflicts resulting from humanistic incompetences are often treated as social or psychological deficits – but they are not. Many of these problems could have been avoided by basic humanistic competences. I.e. the demand exists, although it’s latent. Since I see the sciences in charge here, I say: “fail”.

So far, a little rant of mine.

About modelpractice

Modeling Theory and Abstraction Awareness in strive for scientific rigour and relevance to information systems engineering.
This entry was posted in Abstract Thinking and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Humanities #fail

  1. despicable says:

    Science either KNOWS, or it does NOT KNOW! It does not BELIEVE!
    What it knows it knows relative to the amount of physical evidence that exists relative to the hypothesis.
    The degree of scientific certainty of what is transformed from a theory to a scientific fact is determined by the amount of hard indisputable evidence that exists relative to the hypothesis that is examined.
    It is my understanding that science operates with the understanding that what is scientifically known is relatively known using the scientific law of “PROBABILITY.”
    The more concrete evidence that scientists have, the more the degree of probability that what the scientists say is a probable fact.
    It is very much probable that under the conditions of temperature change that water will dramatically change from a liquid form to a vapor form. It will do so under relatively the same temperature change and same surrounding conditions, over and over again.
    It could be scientifically said that the probability of this occurring under similar conditions in the near and distant future is so much probable that it can be safely PREDICTED that it is very probable that what happened in the past, about water turning into steam will under similar conditions, will be repeated in the present and into the future.
    The same could be said about “Capitalism” being the cause that creates the effect of “Socialism,” and that Socialism being the cause that creates the effect of Communism.
    It is a scientific certainty, because of what we know of the past and the present, that the probability of this social change taking place, falls into the scientific realm of scientific certainty, and can be PREDICTED, scientifically that it will happen in the future.
    It is the only possibility that exists for our future, using the scientific method!

    • Hi despicable

      Thanks for your contribution. In your comment you state that knowledge is sth binary (know/ don’t know) as well as sth continuous (from not knowing towards knowing by the degree of probability).

      Thus one could say analytically: logic #fail and stop reading, or say dialectically: nevertheless its an interesting contribution and start discussing it, or say hermeneutically: lets see what he really wanted to tell us by interpretation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s