Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 466.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2022-01-16 08:40:16+00:00
        From: AlmásiZsolt <almasi.zsolt@btk.ppke.hu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.463: cautions about digital studies of words

Dear Willard et al,

Since Henry's pointing to the article (thanks, Henry), which I immediately read,
I have been thinking about another article in Shakespeare Survey written by
Péter Dávidházi (Dávidházi, Péter. (2013). Redefining Knowledge: An
Epistemological Shift in Shakespeare Studies. In P. Holland (Ed.), Shakespeare
Survey: Working with Shakespeare (Shakespeare Survey, pp. 166-176). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/SSO9781107300699.012). In this paper
Dávidházi argues that in Shakespeare studies from the beginning of the 21st
century one could recognize a powerful and important trend that has given
scholarly status to the merely "probable," "plausible," "conjectural" as against
what is strictly factual. (Of course he substantiates this claim with facts,
publications etc).

Now, I wonder if this recognition of the epistemological shift in scholarship
would qualify, refine or maybe redirect what the authors suggest, i.e. " there
has been a marked shift in public interest from the collective to the
individual, and from rationality toward emotion ". OK, I see that scholarly and
public discourses are different on scientific topics, and yet I also think that
they may also be interrelated.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Best regards,
Zsolt

Almási Zsolt / Zsolt Almási
Tanszékvezető egyetemi docens / Associate Professor and head of department
Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem / Pázmány Péter Catholic University
Angol-Amerikai Intézet / Institute of English-American Studies
Magyar Shakespeare Bizottság ügyvezető titkára / Executive secretary of the
Hungarian Shakespeare Committee

Budapest Mikszáth Kálmán tér 1. H-1088
T +36 70 3170717
E [ mailto:almasi.zsolt@btk.ppke.hu | almasi.zsolt@btk.ppke.hu ]
W: [ http://btk.ppke.hu/karunkrol/intezetek-tanszekek/angol-amerikai-
intezet/oktatok/almasi-zsolt/almasi-zsolt |
http://btk.ppke.hu/karunkrol/intezetek-tanszekek/angol-amerikai-
intezet/oktatok/almasi-zsolt/almasi-zsolt ]
Twitter: @zsalmasi
Skype: almasizs1
-----
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 463.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




Date: 2022-01-14 07:33:29+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: digital studies of words?

In Humanist 35.459 Henry Schaffer reported on a central result from a
statistical study of words concerning, roughly, rationality vs
intuition, from 1850-2019, indicating in the authors' words a shift to,
"irrelevance of factual truth in public discourse", or more cautiously:
"All in all, our results suggest that over the past decades, there has
been a marked shift in public interest from the collective to the
individual, and from rationality toward emotion."

Note their word "suggest". One is hardly surprised. Because it is easy
to come to the conclusion indicated, then one must ask about the
rhetorical force of having arrived at these results by computational
means. Is this not just the first step in study which would go beyond
isolated words? Of course there will always be careless readers and
leapers to conclusions who take such 'suggestions' as proof. But I
would think that more caution, more qualification and less readiness to
publish is called for. Are such analyses the computationally powered
shortcuts to the forecourts of truth that they seem to be? Should we
not take into consideration the appetite for proof-by-machine that
no doubt could be suggested by the same means?

Full disclosure: I've done the same, though with less sophisticated
statistical tools, and I also have used 'suggest', I fear with insufficient
caution. Thus we warn ourselves.

Comments?

Yours,
WM
--
Willard McCarty,
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
www.mccarty.org.uk



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php