>>7717174It's hilarious to see how people will defend the humanities suggesting that the amount of "critical thinking" in the humanities is the same thing as the critical thinking in the hard sciences and mathematics, seemingly just by virtue of sharing the same buzzword.
But that's just a feature of language - as much as words communicate, they can obfuscate as well. Connotations, context, collocations can alter the meaning of any word. I'm not joking when I say you can create a case for anything using words. How else to politicians, trolls and debaters continue their work? Same can't be said of mathematics however; there aren't 10 ways to view a + sign, and it's the same regardless of what country you're from these days. It's almost as if the tower of Babel was a pillar of universal mathematical greatness before the words came along and people confounded one another.
It's therefore natural that all the critical thinking in the humanities, which use words as a staple of reasoning, really amounts to squat compared to the hard sciences. Hence you have all the needless arguments in philosophy, and economists who can't seem to figure out how the economy actually works,
And when someone actually comes by with an idea of how the economy works, it's usually a person with strong mathematical ability. Like Terence Tao for example, who's written some pretty hardcore papers on economics. Or the physics and engineering PhDs that run Wall Street using quantifiable models rather than vague notions as an economist might.
