Fields X, Y, and Z work on problem, p. Interpretations X(p), Y(p), and Z(p) are different. But the best in each have lots in common. Established members of each field jealously defend their interpretation or pretend that the rest don't exist. Students grow in artificial nuclei.
-
-
-
Replying to @abhilashabhatia
There are less wrong ones with respect to particular aspects of the problem. But, inevitably, you have to assign subjective weights to which parts you care about most. When you're so invested in a field, you forget they are subjective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist
Thing is without the subjective weights students will not understand the importance of the problem in given space. If both, with subjective weights and without, interpretations are considered together, it might make more sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @abhilashabhatia
Oh, yes. Definitely. I think you have to do that to *decompose* the subjectivity. Like, which parts are emphasized because it's important to our field, and which are emphasized to *obscure* other fields. The latter *shouldn't* happen, but it seems to a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Like my exposure to sociology & anthropology was minimal for a while working on political science / computational social science dissertation because political scientists have an almost palpable distain for both. Less so now, but still strong upturned noses for qualitative stuff.
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.