Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 103.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.90: a thesis (223)
[2] From: Karadkar, Unmil (unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at) <unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at>
Subject: RE: [Humanist] 37.101: that thesis (131)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-06-14 11:42:24+00:00
From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.90: a thesis
Dear Willard,
as usual, you raise very interesting questions, which nevertheless are
not simple to answer – partially, as they are so brief, that multiple
background questions maybe contained in one foreground sentence.
In the current case, I see at least two theses, which have appeared in
the discussion of your original mail.
Your first thesis has been:
(1) The essential contribution of computing to the humanities lies in the
analogical character of digital modelling, whose mode of expression
is by nature simultaneously like and unlike our own.
In the discussion than a second question = thesis arose:
(2) "What about the essential
contribution of humanities to computing?"
I call this a “thesis” rather than a question, as it first of all
assumes, that there /has/ been such a contribution, which quite a few
people might actually doubt.
Let me comment on (2) first, as I think the clarifications needed in my
opinion to make it answerable, help ultimately also in understanding (1)
a bit better and make it easier to answer.
The problem with this thesis is obviously, that we need some
understanding what “the contribution of a discipline to another” is. As
the number of people who have an opinion about (2) is significantly
smaller than the number of people who have an opinion on (1), it seems
to me to be much easier to comment.
If I understand Paul correctly, he thinks that the main contribution of
the Humanities to “computing” is the emphatic understanding that a broad
intellectual frame of reference is needed, to take discussions from the
trivial incidence of coding to a more theoretical and therefore more
general perspective.
In this sense a “contribution” is an enrichment of the wider conceptual
universe, in which a question is discussed; but the very generality of
that sense means, that for wide areas this contribution is peripheral.
Now historically, there is at least one case, where a Humanities’
question seems to have had a direct influence on engineering on a much
more focused level.
In the early eighties I had to tackle what then was considered “big
data”. I will not quote the number of bytes involved, as the numbers
look pathetic today, but let it suffice to say, that I had to sort an
amount of data, which got beyond the limit of what could be held on one
magnetic tape. To solve this problem I consulted a technical manual of
the Univac Mainframe I was using, entitled “Sort/Merge facility”. To my
great astonishment I came across a number of excerpts from the bible in
this technical document, which illustrated one point or the other. Only
much later I understood, that I had most probably come across the traces
of Ellison’s concordance of the bible, which was, indeed, supported by
Sperry Univac with tape technology, when Busa’s IBM support still
focused on punched cards. I cannot prove, that that was the reason to
develop this “Sort/Merge facility”, but I really cannot imagine, why
else the engineers should have become biblical during development.
I like this example, as it is one of the rare cases, where a genuine
Humanities’ problem “sort an amount of data which tests the limit of
<today/>’s hardware” seems to have lead directly to an engineering
solution which expanded the applicability of computer technology
considerably for everybody. (Other examples would be most welcome.)
This differentiation between two possible interpretations of
“Humanities’ contribution to Computing” of course points to another
differentiation which may be helpful: Paul’s answer to your second
question translates “Computing” primarily as “Computer Science”, I
translated it primarily as “Software Engineering”. Just for completeness
sake let me point out, that these two interpretations are not that
incommensurable as it may look like. Over the years, I increasingly
became convinced that coding requires a specific talent, which seems to
be unteachable: Some people look at a block of marble and see David,
most don’t; some look at a research question and see a data structure,
most don’t. That’s why you have incredibly many boring statues and
incredibly much uninspiring software. That Donald Knuth might support
this point of view encourages me: that he at the same time is
undoubtedly a highly gifted mathematician reassures me (“not that
incommensurable”).
While my example has been intentionally based as closely to coding, I am
slightly surprised that the (almost) textbook answer to “What are
Humanities’ contributions to Computer Science?” has not turned up so
far: Chomsky’s early work and the appearance of the Backus-Naur form are
so closely intertwined, that the two are almost inseparable. And
whatsoever the merit of Chomskyan linguistics for the understanding of
language, the appearance of Backus-Naur for the development of
programming languages is beyond dispute.
So: the Humanities have the potential to contribute to computing, when
they either pose a problem, which forces to develop new technical
concepts and / or, when they develop formalisms which can be applied
algorithmically, particularly also to other segments of the knowledge
domain.
(( And forgive me for quoting, again, my two primary examples where I am
very disappointed that they have not lead to a much more intensive
Humanities / Computer Science discussion: Devlin’s attempt to propose a
mathematics of information: Keith Devlin: /Logic and Information/,
Cambridge, 1991; Lakoff’s attempt to get the idea across, that semantics
is more important than syntax in understanding languages: George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson: /Metaphors We Live By/, Chicago 1980. If possible, use
the reprint of 2003.))
Now let me try to apply this process of looking a bit more closely on
the defining terms of
(2) "What about the essential
contribution of humanities to computing?"
to your original thesis:
(1) The essential contribution of computing to the humanities lies in the
analogical character of digital modelling, whose mode of expression
is by nature simultaneously like and unlike our own.
A minor point first: “analogical character of digital modeling”. Is
there any kind of model which does not have an analogical character? If
any model *M*::= { M1, M2, …, Mn} is a representation of a reality *R
*::= { R1, R2, …, Rm} must not any relationship Mi :: Mj be a
representation of an analog relationship Rk :: Rl?
Which can obviously not be inverted into the fallacy of requiring every
Rk :: Rl to have to be represented by a Mi :: Mj, if you want to avoid
the famous Lewis Caroll paradox:
<paradox>
That's another thing we've learned from your Nation," said Mein Herr,
"map-making. But we've carried it much further than you. What do you
consider the largest map that would be really useful?"
/"About six inches to the mile."/
""Only six inches!"exclaimed Mein Herr. "We very soon got to six yards
to the mile. Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came
the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the
scale of a mile to the mile!"
/"Have you used it much?" I enquired./
"It has never been spread out, yet," said Mein Herr: "the farmers
objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the
sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure
you it does nearly as well.
</paradox>
Having written that, let me emphasize that I like the “analogical
character of digital modelling” VERY much, as it is a nice antidote to
the rampant belief of a mystic quality of “the digital” as such.
I wonder however, whether the requirement of any non-trivial application
of computing to be based upon an <emph>explicit</emph> model of
whatsoever shall be processed by that act of computing does indeed form
at least a very important, if not the most important, contribution of
“computing” to the Humanities.
For the very simple reason, that a model <emph> can</emph> be
communicated between two researchers. Nobody said, that that has to be
easy, but a meaningful discussion of a model should be possible.
Communicating the result of a personal metaphysical experience in my
opinion on the other hand is impossible. Starting with St. Thomas notion
that "understanding" involved “a vital act in which the intellect moved
itself to know another as other” and not ending with Gadamer’s claim (my
translation): “To understand a language is by itself no real
understanding and does not include any process of interpretation, but it
is an act of living (‘Lebensvollzug’). One understands a language by
living in it – a sentence which, as we know, is not only valid for
living languages, but for dead ones as well.”
Sorry, but “vital acts”, “acts of living” and instantaneous
understanding of the minutest meaning of somebody else’s utterance are
not my experience in communicating with other people. I have to
negotiate hard with them to get across what exactly we mean. And that is
an act, where being forced to list the assumptions completely helps.
As ever,
Manfred
Am 10.06.23 um 08:59 schrieb Humanist:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 90.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to:humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: 2023-06-09 08:42:35+00:00
> From: Willard McCarty<willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: a thesis
>
> I'm being bold, as I'm not altogether sure the following deserves
> such a dignified title as my subject-line confers on it, but
> here goes:
>
> The essential contribution of computing to the humanities lies in the
> analogical character of digital modelling, whose mode of expression
> is by nature simultaneously like and unlike our own.
>
> Comments?
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty,
> Professor emeritus, King's College London;
> Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
> www.mccarty.org.uk
--
Prof.em.Dr. Manfred Thaller
formerly University at Cologne /
zuletzt Universität zu Köln
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-06-14 08:29:46+00:00
From: Karadkar, Unmil (unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at) <unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at>
Subject: RE: [Humanist] 37.101: that thesis
Dear Paul, Willard, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion,
From my experience with DH, with training in computer and information sciences
and current employment in a faculty of the humanities I will continue the
"thrashing around" 😊. I want to preface my thoughts with the caveat that any
contributions I speak of remain on the fringes. There is much of humanities that
happens without computing and much computing that happens without the
humanities.
In my view, the core contribution of the humanities to computing are inclusion
of the notions of subjectivity (multiple "accurate" representations of a single
phenomenon) and uncertainty in computational representations. While
computational models allow for representations, once cast, such representations
seem to be taken with a grain of authority. Computer scientists and users of
computer systems have long operated with the perception that these mappings are
accurate and the only possible representations of reality. There were certainly
threads of scholarship exploring the uncertainty in visualisations, hypertextual
connections (perhaps, others, that I am not familiar with) before but DH
scholarship is driving the issue of such multi-perspective representations (for
example, scholarship by Johanna Drucker on visualizations).
Of course there is much more work to be done and perhaps, this I write about
what I wish is a contribution of the humanities to computing... I will end my
thrashing here for now.
With warm regards,
-unmil.
-----Original Message-----
From: Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 7:45 AM
To: Karadkar, Unmil (unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at) <unmil.karadkar@uni-graz.at>
Subject: [Humanist] 37.101: that thesis
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 101.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Fishwick, Paul <Paul.Fishwick@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.98: that thesis (66)
[2] From: David Zeitlyn <david.zeitlyn@anthro.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.100: that thesis (7)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-06-13 17:12:01+00:00
From: Fishwick, Paul <Paul.Fishwick@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.98: that thesis
Dear Willard:
You discussed--------------
“So, Paul's most welcome rejoinder: "What about the essential contribution of
humanities to computing?" What indeed. If we're talking about computing as a
kind of engineering, then wouldn't answers come from asking that very question
of older forms of engineering? This would send me to the likes of Walter
Vincenti and Eugene Ferguson, and to historian Mike Mahoney. If a kind of
architecture, then, among others, those listed by Neil Leach in Rethinking
Architecture (1997) or to Annabel Jane Wharton's Architectural Agents: The
Delusional, Abusive, Addictive Lives of Buildings (2015). Oddly enough the
question gets easier with the hugely difficult application of computing to
modelling intelligence.
But I am just thrashing around here. I think Paul could answer his own question
better than I, or others here deeper into the technical side of computing than
I've ever been.”
My response---------------
On the connection between computer science and the humanities, or more
generally, science & engineering and the humanities, I have one question and and
one response.
I am still needing to understand the apparent concern within the humanities on
efforts to expand research along the lines of the digital (e.g. digital
humanities and digital arts). I would think that acceptance within the
traditional humanities would continue to be on the rise. Is this not so? Is
there really a good case to be made for doing without the digital humanities and
humanities computing?
As to how the humanities can help computing, there are many possibilities. The
first is the introduction of philosophy. Ethics with respect to AI has taken the
media by storm, and so Ethics is one subject needed to make its way into
computer science. But, this is the tip of the iceberg. Philosophy, in general,
should be a requirement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy
Another major concern of mine is that computer science is obsessive about
utility. There is little question that coding and the use of the technology is
key; however, this centrality has come at the expense of computer scientists
forgetting that it is the theory (‘mathematics’
for CS) that is also central. My 3 month stay at Exeter in the UK had me
wandering everywhere to find computer science, operations research, and STEM. I
ended up giving a public lecture at the local museum. Consider the beautiful
medieval Exeter bridge. Not only is this of historical and cultural
significance, but also, mathematics, computer science, and operations research
can be found in this structure. Mathematics is a way of thinking about the
bridge.
Unfortunately, this mode of thought is too uncommon. The focus on computer
science (applied mathematics) is imagined to be solely for engineering and
technological utility. What if computer science could be a “way of thinking and
interpreting?” Then, the bridge serves as an object of diverse learning and
reflection. Philosophy trumps utility. I want to code like everyone else, but I
place more emphasis on the CS theory because through this theory, we can re-
engage with our humanities colleagues.
-paul
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-06-13 07:24:11+00:00
From: David Zeitlyn <david.zeitlyn@anthro.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.100: that thesis
For readers unfamiliar with Graham M. Jones's work part of the interest is that
his doctoral work was the ethnographic study of magic - stage magicians in
Paris!
best wishes
david
_______________________________________________
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
