I don’t think that the appropriate distinction is between social and natural sciences, so much as it is between verifiable and not verifiable.
In Physics, there are lots of counterintuitive results for a truthseeker to have to accept, so it probably helps someone become more rational.
In Literature, there’s very little that lets you check what you’re saying, and in some circles not even asking the author what they meant counts. So there’s confusion to dissolve, but it doesn’t seem to be common practice.
I lean towards thinking that Economics is good rationalist training because of the messy data, emotionally-charged issues that you’re investigating, and the ability to come up with useful results despite that.
In Literature, there’s very little that lets you check what you’re saying, and in some circles not even asking the author what they meant counts. So there’s confusion to dissolve, but it doesn’t seem to be common practice.
Study of literature, especially older literature, is in my opinion indispensable for what is perhaps the most difficult act of overcoming bias, namely realization that there can exist people with views and values radically different from one’s own who are not delusional, stupid, or malicious.
Do you mean actually reading older literature, or academic analysis of older literature? If the latter, a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for literary theory seems to show that the field is full of confusion:
...many contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that “literature” cannot be defined...
and many of the schools of thought listed there seem to be about writing a bottom line, and then making whatever work of literature (whatever that is) is being examined fit.
I meant actually reading older literature, but third-party analysis and commentary can be very helpful, as long as you’re not taking their claims for granted. I certainly agree that there is a whole lot of nonsense produced in the humanities in general, so caveat lector.
Well, that depends on what exactly interests you. On the whole, for a modern English speaker, there is a huge wealth of 18th and 19th century literature available for free online, which is probably optimal because it’s distant enough to offer interesting perspective, but at the same time highly readable and not so alien as to be incomprehensible without specialized study. On almost any subject that is a matter of ideological controversy today (or that was a matter of controversy in past ages), you can have a lot of fun by reading through random titles from past centuries that come out of Google Books when you search for the relevant terms.
In Physics, there are lots of counterintuitive results for a truthseeker to have to accept, so it probably helps someone become more rational.
In the same time, physics students usually accept this by authority, and only later learn all the details which constitute the evidence implying the counterintuitive theories, so this is a double-edged sword.
(The physicist training probably con’t be much improved in that. If the students had to really see that e.g. quantum mechanics is really the best theory to explain the observed phenomena, they had to go through a lot of blind alleys that physicists examined between 1900 and 1930 - and it isn’t without a reason that it took about thirty years to formulate QM in a coherent form.)
I don’t think that the appropriate distinction is between social and natural sciences, so much as it is between verifiable and not verifiable.
In Physics, there are lots of counterintuitive results for a truthseeker to have to accept, so it probably helps someone become more rational.
In Literature, there’s very little that lets you check what you’re saying, and in some circles not even asking the author what they meant counts. So there’s confusion to dissolve, but it doesn’t seem to be common practice.
I lean towards thinking that Economics is good rationalist training because of the messy data, emotionally-charged issues that you’re investigating, and the ability to come up with useful results despite that.
Study of literature, especially older literature, is in my opinion indispensable for what is perhaps the most difficult act of overcoming bias, namely realization that there can exist people with views and values radically different from one’s own who are not delusional, stupid, or malicious.
Do you mean actually reading older literature, or academic analysis of older literature? If the latter, a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for literary theory seems to show that the field is full of confusion:
and many of the schools of thought listed there seem to be about writing a bottom line, and then making whatever work of literature (whatever that is) is being examined fit.
I meant actually reading older literature, but third-party analysis and commentary can be very helpful, as long as you’re not taking their claims for granted. I certainly agree that there is a whole lot of nonsense produced in the humanities in general, so caveat lector.
Do you have any books in particular in mind?
Well, that depends on what exactly interests you. On the whole, for a modern English speaker, there is a huge wealth of 18th and 19th century literature available for free online, which is probably optimal because it’s distant enough to offer interesting perspective, but at the same time highly readable and not so alien as to be incomprehensible without specialized study. On almost any subject that is a matter of ideological controversy today (or that was a matter of controversy in past ages), you can have a lot of fun by reading through random titles from past centuries that come out of Google Books when you search for the relevant terms.
In the same time, physics students usually accept this by authority, and only later learn all the details which constitute the evidence implying the counterintuitive theories, so this is a double-edged sword.
(The physicist training probably con’t be much improved in that. If the students had to really see that e.g. quantum mechanics is really the best theory to explain the observed phenomena, they had to go through a lot of blind alleys that physicists examined between 1900 and 1930 - and it isn’t without a reason that it took about thirty years to formulate QM in a coherent form.)