ml3v

>Grievance scholars isn't a real label

I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities.

And I'm not too worried about the legitimacy of this viewpoint from within the academic community.

What is dangerous is that people who are only marginally invested form a dangerous and disingenuous opinion of large fields of research on the basis of "SJWs are annoying".

> On Pearl

Obviously a counterexample within the context of STEM. What this guy hates about the humanities is that it challenges the status quo.

The point I'm trying to make with this relates to communities and the perception of criticism.

Foulcaut would say all the humanities are capable of is to criticize modern institutions.

> I'm just talking about the modern context.

When we say "greivence studies",

This is a phrase this guy came up with, to obviously target a subset of the humanities with a left leaning adgenda (i.e. womens studies, african american studies, and whatever gay studies is called), and target a low quality journal to confirm his preheld belifes.

It's not a useful idea to try to understand discourse or solve any problem within the humanities, but an disrespectful attempt to mar whole departments.

The choice of the label Grievence scholar is deliberate. If to critically understand anything is impossible, all you're doing is complaining.

> Marring whole fields of study

This is the intended response. Not to expose flaws in the paper to publication pipeline. So people could point and laugh.

It doesn't help that STEM people love to do this anyway.

Until you bring up research fraud in their respective field, and how dumb did that made them all look.

In bio this happens all the time, most often at the top of the research hierarchy.

Well there are certainly heavyweight researchers who believe the DL can organize and recognize higher principles. Andrew Ng and Geoff Hinton are among them.

But DL nets can be very fragile solutions, that only curve fit to the training data.

You dont want to recognize the same picture of the puppy, you want to recognize all puppies.

Others who disagree are trying to integrate logical approaches with DL into novel archetectures.

I see it as more of pendulum moving back and forth.

But Pearl's work is in Causal Statistics and is a hard core Bayesian.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build-truly-intelligent-ma...

It's not like his complaints aren't being addressed in the field, they are just not easy problems (transfer learning, world models)

In a neural analogy, you don't haven't built a brain, you have a reflex.

Grievance scholars isn't a real label.

Judea Pearl thinks that DL is nothing more than curve fitting. Is he a greivence scholar?

In the humanities criticism plays a similar role.

A researcher criticizing slavery or modern social structures isn't completely now free of any standards.

The journal they tricked has an impact factor of 1.1, so im not impressed.

Using 'greivence scholars' is stupid, and contributes to the STEM superiority complex.