How humanists are using computers to understand text

[musicaldope]

Is the word 'humanist' used for people who study the humanities? I've only ever heard it in the context of humanism. Not saying it's wrong, I'm genuinely wondering

[benbreen]

It's a relatively uncommon usage but yes, it can just mean people who work in humanities fields. After all, the modern fields of history, literature, etc. trace their genealogies directly back to Renaissance humanism so it makes sense. Sometimes it's used in a self-aware way to refer to both at the same time, as in this profile of Anthony Grafton of Princeton, so far as I know the sole contemporary owner of a Renaissance book wheel:

http://www.princeton.edu/paw/archive_new/PAW06-07/11-0404/fe...

[camillomiller]

Here in Europe we call "Humanities" what you may address as "Liberal Arts". Therefore yes, "humanist" is fine, but uncommon, especially in the US. I'd say it's the kind of word a... Humanist would use, since it's the more philologically correct. Interesting to note that here in Italy the thing is reversed. While "umanismo" and "umanista" are broadly used, "arti liberali" is less common, while still correct.

[marcus_holmes]

Is it just me or does this writing style, common to academics in social sciences, make things almost impossibly hard to read?

I get about halfway through the paragraph before losing the will to read any more. I understand all the words but they don't seem to fit into patterns that make sense.

[whatshisface]

This is just a wild shot in the dark, but maybe those in the humanities are abnormally good at reading?

Like, if a lit major said the math in a CS paper was hard to follow nobody would bat an eye.

[anigbrowl]

You should get a computer to read it for you. /ducks

Seriously, the writer is addressing his peers, and as such is well justified in assuming a high degree of prior knowledge and a willingness to look up additional references as necessary. It doesn't seem particularly complex or challenging to me.

[api]

It's just jargon. Sometimes in CS/IT discussions I will switch off the part of my brain that parses IT jargon and acronyms. It becomes utter gibberish.

There are real ideas there. I'm not totally convinced they're all good ideas, but they're real ones with substance.

[_rpd]

Part of their training is to write statements that can be interpreted multiple ways. This allows them to distance themselves from problematic interpretations (crucial for career survival) while claiming credit for popular interpretations, as well as raising the chance that their writing will be cited by others in the field (crucial for career progression). It also signals professionalism in their field - who would want to rely on someone so incautious as to write plainly?