The humanities are academic disciplines that study human culture, using methods that are primarily critical, or speculative, and have a significant historical element —as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural sciences. The humanities include ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre. The humanities that are also sometimes regarded as social sciences include history, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, law and linguistics.
Most models and methodologies that we use can be likened to algorithms in one way or another. On some other page I plan to argue that the "greedy" algorithm, much like the "tiny monster" genetic sequence, is the theoretical root progenitor of all other algorithms, in that it is the simplest and most successful in a resource-rich and uncomplicated environment. Thus, to a certain degree, all other algorithms are merely elaborations of the greedy algorithm, for the sake of greater utility in more complex and "leaner" environments which require more than the dumb power to acquire "scarce" resources. (Yes, I did that on purpose. Get over it.) P:D That's exactly what the representative agent model is -- a quick and dirty approximation of reality that has indeed gotten the job done for quite a while, with the entropy piling up to that moment years ago when it failed critically. Now that we've completely broken it on an environment that was simply too complex for its original design, we have to fix it. But will anyone plant new acorns besides me? P;D
The decay of socially held knowledge allows a methodology, or the standards that are applied to it, to become outdated. (John C. Wright gave a term for this ((divarication?)) in _Count to a Trillion_.
From the days of Alfred Marshall, there seems to have been little improvement in how Economists have measured the nature of goods, services, and trade, and perhaps even (over-)simplified these measures even more.
The Walking Dead
"-Oidism" is my newly-coined term for those philosophies which continue to exist and thrive only because of their resemblance to far more respectable schools of thought.
Thus, in _The Science Delusion_, Rupert Sheldrake points us to the difference between <Science> and <Scientoidism>. (I'll concede that the author has problems of his own, but I can forgive him for folding up under the tremendous weight of Humanitoids' epic stupidity.)
In Science, "Fallibility" is a serious position, but in Scientoidism, it can be dismissed with some hand-waving and talk of the technological progress that as been made, ignoring that many of the most promising technologies we have emerged as the resolution of serious problems in Science.