Paradigm Shift

There once was a day when I entertained a notion that philosophy and the humanities were interesting and fulfilling fields. Yet, as each day goes by, I begin to doubt the validity of all non-quantitative/mathematical academic disciplines. Consider Aristophanes' exceptional parody of Socrates and the sophists, entitled Clouds. When Strepsiades walks into the house of Socrates, he sees Socrates hanging from a basket, along with his students who have all assumed strange positions for pondering. Although Strepsiades is too shallow to learn from Socrates, his son Pheidippedes studies with the sage, and uses his new rhetorical skill to "argue away" Strepsiades' creditors, among other absurdities. While I disagree with Aristophanes' primary point about morality and reason, the fact remains that this sort of verbal logic is not well suited for truth-seeking activities.

I don't mean to discard verbal argumentation altogether; it certainly has a purpose. It can express many ideas that are impossible to express otherwise. After all, by presently using a verbal form of argumentation, I am equivocating, I suppose.

The principle problem is that verbal arguments are very malleable and have differing strength depending on their presentation. Thus, it is difficult to segregate the validity of an argument from its presentation. I suspect that this is why these humanities people will argue incessantly about all issues, while empiricists and the mathematically inclined usually can agree on truth much more easily (contingent on certain axioms).

This is not to say that the humanities and some social sciences don't gain anything by arguing. After all, arguing can be extremely fun. The problem is that it's simply not a very efficient means of arriving at truth. Indeed, many of the humanities seem to disregard the very notion of truth-seeking behavior. In the study of literature, for example, the game is to advance and substantiate often-irrelevant interpretations of implied meaning. Other than being potentially fun and interesting, this is simply a mental exercise. By "truth," I am not referring to some nebulous absolute either. I simply refer to what we know to be true given certain assumptions (e.g. mathematical axioms, or the assumptions of empiricism).

I've caught myself in a trap, though. Why are truth-seeking academics any better than opinion-endorsing ones? That is my weltanschauung. It is fundamentally indefensible. Nevertheless, I will present a couple suggestive examples. First, there is a reason why physics is entirely based in mathematics. There is also a reason why "physics-envy" has infected so many disciplines (all the hard sciences, lots of social science, economics...). Lastly, there is a reason why very, very few disciplines have recently emulated the approach of inquiry taken in a field like philosophy.

... QED...?