No scientist DMs me demanding an explanation. But too often ppl in the humanities feel entitled to demand science always addresses culture
That's science. I'm more interested in pulling out attitudes and making convincing arguments about their influences & significance.
-
-
eg The thesis I won an award for compared Aemilia Lanyer's model of feminine spiritual wisdom with that attributed to St Monica of Hippo.
-
People were interested in the connections & similarities right down to the language. Did she base this on Monica or was it just in the air?
-
I do not know but made some arguments that either or both are plausible. So, not very scientific but of interest to like-minded people.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Those arguments can be convincing because based on something. They can be wrong. If they can't be, its pseudoscience. Else, science.
-
Yes, if we define science as addressing any argument which can be right or wrong but I feel this misses the essence.
-
I say 'like Monica of Hippo coz A.B,C!' Someone else says 'But also dissimilar coz X,. More similarity with English saints coz Y, Z.'
-
And we discuss this & agree or disagree & the exploration is the point & anyone trying to add up similarities & differences misses it.
-
The aim is simply different. Different ways of looking at things. Coming from different angles. This is what is interesting.
-
PoMo goes too far by insisting that reality is constructed by these different angles & perceptions & that there is no truth.
-
I'd say there is one &science is the method for getting at it. Humanities more for exploring perceptions which are interesting in themselves
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.