Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 42.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2026-06-03 09:18:17+00:00
From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.29: what's wrong
Dear Willard, Dear all,
I think your clarification here most important:
> So, I'd say, ironically, our field of study is
> limited insofar as we fail to study the limits computing in the
> humanities encounters whenever pressed to the limits of what the machine
> can do at any one moment.
In my opinion, the core of the problem is, that there are extremely few
people who have a systematic interest in the question of how to apply
computation on an abstract level to "the Humanities". Or even to
"History". I observe that more than 99 % of the practitioners of "DH"
are interested in questions like: what is the best way to use the tools
that are available to answer this very specific question I have.
When you have been sitting in any funding committee you will invariably
have encountered the argument: "This is an interesting problem, but
there is no Humanities theme which profits from it within the project.
Its just those computer science people who will profit. So we should
not fund it."
As long as there is no serious recognition of the assumption, that the
Humanities pose questions, for which the concrete technologies we have
are insufficient, not because the technology does not exist, but because
the abstract models on which such technologies are founded do not fit
the material available to Humanists, there is no progress on this.
If you are willing to suffer from the cynicism of a grumpy
septuagenarian, part of what I mean is illustrated in
https://www.academia.edu/165759154/Manfred_Thaller_On_the_Extraction_and_Communi
cation_of_Historical_Knowledge_A_Pipedream
> By ignoring them, instead of taking them as
> characteristics of a different intelligence than our own, we fog the
> mind with chatter about the next release.
I totally agree with the "chatter about the next release". But I find it
very hard to swallow the "characteristics of a different intelligence
than our own". I see no intelligence there, just data structures and
algorithms. These are different enough for me.
Kind regards,
Manfred
Am 30.05.26 um 08:45 schrieb Humanist:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 29.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: 2026-05-30 06:30:50+00:00
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.26: what's wrong
>
> Jim Rovira asks why I think digital humanities is limited. I'd say,
> because we are, as finite creatures, along with all that we do. Digital
> humanities goes back to a finite-state machine, which in its application
> to the artefacts we study runs into what Stevan Harnad called "The
> symbol grounding problem" (1990)*, or what happens in "modeling the mind"
> (Harnad 1990). Not only does this problem remain unsolved (Harnad 2010)**,
> but it is the origin of all that's truly interesting in digital
> humanities itself. So, I'd say, ironically, our field of study is
> limited insofar as we fail to study the limits computing in the
> humanities encounters whenever pressed to the limits of what the machine
> can do at any one moment. By ignoring them, instead of taking them as
> characteristics of a different intelligence than our own, we fog the
> mind with chatter about the next release.
>
> Comments?
>
> WM
> -----
> *Stevan Harnad, "The symbol grounding problem". Physica D 42 (1990) 335-346.
> **Stevan Harnad, "Symbol Grounding Problem: Turing-‐Scale Solution Needed".
> IEEE AMD Newsletter 7(1).
>
> On 28/05/2026 07:03, Humanist wrote:
>> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 26.
>> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>> Hosted by DH-Cologne
>> www.dhhumanist.org
>> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: 2026-05-27 23:10:17+00:00
>> From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.18: what's wrong
>>
>> I'm curious why you think there are intellectual limitations? Why do you
>> think DH needs to be liberated?
>>
>> The mind is always free.
>>
>> Server space, physical space, faculty lines are never free.
>>
>> Jim R
>>
>>
>>>> For digital humanities as a field of research, what is the most serious
>>>> intellectual limitation? Is there one overriding problem holding everyone
>>>> back--even if they don't realise what it is? Is there a fundamental
>>>> impediment that if removed, circumvented or better understood would
>>>> liberate research across the disciplines which computing engages
>>>> with?
>
> --
> Willard McCarty, Professor em., King's College London;
> Interdisciplinary Research in the Arts, Sciences and Humanities
> (tinyurl.com/Berghahn-IRASH); Humanist (dhhumanist.org);
> Science in the Forest, Science in the Past
> (www.cl.cam.ac.uk/events/sfsp/);
> www.mccarty.org.uk
--
Prof.em.Dr. Manfred Thaller
formerly University at Cologne /
zuletzt Universität zu Köln
_______________________________________________
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
