Can We Be Wrong? The Problem of Textual Evidence in a Time of Data

Andrew Piper

doi:10.1017/9781108922036

References

Ash, M., Herndon, T., & Pollin, R. (2013). Does high profile debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogo. Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper Series, no. 322.

Baggerly, K. A. & Coombes, K. R. (2009). Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. Annals of Applied Statistics, 3, 1309–1344. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-AOAS291

Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, London: Printed for Jacob Tonson.

Bode, K. (2018). A World of Fiction: Digital Collections and the Future of Literary History, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bode, K.(2020). Why you can’t model away bias. Modern Language Quarterly, 81(1), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1215/00267929–7933102

Bossaerts, P., Camerer, C., Fiorillo, C. D. et al. (2008). Explicit neural signals reflecting reward uncertainty. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 363, 3801–3811. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0152

Bourrier, K. & Thelwall, M. (2020). The social lives of books: Reading Victorian literature on Goodreads. Journal of Cultural Analytics. https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.12049

Bowersock, G. W. (2008). Introduction. In Valla, L, On the Donation of Constantine, trans. G. W. Bowersock, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buurma, R. S. & Heffernan, L. (2012). The common reader and the archival classroom: Disciplinary history for the twenty-first century. New Literary History, 43(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2012.0005

Camporeale, S. I. (1996). Lorenzo Valla’s oratio on the pseudo-donation of Constantine: Dissent and innovation in early Renaissance humanism. Journal of the History of Ideas, 57(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3653880

Contessa, G. (2007). Scientific representation, interpretation, and surrogative reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 74(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/519478

Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Hannah, K., Khamis, A., & Teich, E. (2018). An information-theoretic approach to modeling diachronic change in scientific English. From Data to Evidence in English Language Research. Suhr, C., Nevalainen, T., & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Leiden: Brill. 258–281.

Degaetano-Ortlieb, S. & Piper, A. (2019). The scientization of literary study. Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-2503

Degaetano-Ortlieb, S. & Teich, E. (2017). Modeling intra-textual variation with entropy and surprisal: Topical vs. stylistic patterns. Proceedings of the Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2209

Devlin, J., Chang, M-W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 4171–4186.

Dilthey, W. (1922). Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung. Lessing, Goethe, Novalis, Hölderlin, 8th ed., Wiesbaden: Springer.

Earp, B. D. & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621

Eco, U. (1989). The Open Work, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Emre, M. (2018). Paraliterary: The Making of Bad Readers in Postwar America, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Erickson, L. & Thiessen, E. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review, 37, 66–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.05.002

Evans, J. A. & Foster, J. G. (2011). Metaknowledge. Science, 331(6018), 721–725. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201765

Evans, J. A. & McMahan, P. (2018). Ambiguity and engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 124(3), 860–912. https://doi.org/10.1086/701298

Felski, R. (2008). Uses of Literature, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Felski, R.(2015). The Limits of Critique, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Felski, R.ed. (2017). Special issue: For example. New Literary History, 48(3), 415–608.

Fish, S. E. (1976). Interpreting the “Variorum.” Critical Inquiry, 2(3), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1086/447852

Fohrmann, J. & Voßkamp, W. eds. (1994). Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Germanistik im 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart: Metzler.

Foster, E. D. & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105(2), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.88

Gadamer, H.-G. (1990). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen: Mohr.

Gius, E., Reiter, N., & Willand, M. (2019). Foreword to the Special Issue: “A shared task for the digital humanities: Annotating narrative levels,” Journal of Cultural Analytics. https://doi.org/10.22148/16.047

Gladen, B. & Rogan, W .J. (1978). Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. American Journal of Epidemiology, 107(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/Oxfordjournals.Aje.A112510

Goldhill, S. (2017). The limits of the case study: Exemplarity and the reception of classical literature. New Literary History, 48(3), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2017.0023

Goldstone, A. & Underwood, T. (2014). The quiet transformations of literary studies: What thirteen thousand scholars could tell us. New Literary History, 45(3), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3222RZT

Grafton, A. (1994). Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grafton, A. & Jardine, L. (1986). From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guillory, J. (1993). Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Guo, P., Ma, Z., & Stodden, V. (2013). Toward reproducible computational research: An empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journals. PLOS ONE, 8(6), e67111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067111

Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harada, T., Koeda, T., Ohno, K. et al. (2012). Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm. Cortex, 48(5), 563–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.004

Hayot, E. (2016). Against historicist fundamentalism. PMLA, 131(5), 1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2016.131.5.1414

Horvat, M., Mlinarić, A., & Smolčić, V. S. (2017). Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia medica, 27(3), 030201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030201

Hunter, M. C. (2010). Experiment, theory, representation: Robert Hooke’s material models. In Frigg, R. & Springer, H., Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 193–219.

Iqbal, F., Binsalleeh, H., Fung, B. C. M., & Debbabi, M. (2013). A unified data mining solution for authorship analysis in anonymous textual communications. Information Sciences, 231, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.006

Jameson, F. (1986). Third world literature in the era of multi-national capitalism. Social Text, 15, 65–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/466493

Kant, I. (1996) Kritik der Urteilskraft, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Kelley, D. R. (1970). Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance, New York: Columbia University Press, 19–46.

Kopp, D. & Wegmann, N. (1988). Wenige wissen noch, wie Leser lieset.’ Anmerkungen zum Thema: Lesen und Geschwindigkeit. In Oellers, N., ed. Germanistik und Deutschunterricht im Zeitalter der Technologie: Selbstbestimmung und Anpassung, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 92–104.

Laplace, P. S. (1841). Mémoire sur la probabilité des causes par les évènements. Oeuvres complètes, 8, 27–65.

Lerer, S. (2002). Error and the Academic Self: The Scholarly Imagination, Medieval to Modern, New York: Columbia University Press.

Levine, C. (2017). Model thinking: Generalization, political form, and the common good. New Literary History, 48(4), 633–653. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2017.0033

Locke, J. (1824). Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 12th ed., London: Rivington.

Martinez-Fuentes, C. & Vicente-Saez, R. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043

Nauta, L. (2009). In Defense of Common Sense: Lorenzo Valla’s Humanist Critique of Scholastic Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P. & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462588

Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 6251. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Payne, G. & Williams, M. (2005). Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology, 39(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505050540

Peters, M.E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2227–2237. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1202

Piper, A. (2017). Think small: On literary modeling. PMLA, 132(3), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2017.132.3.651

Piper, A. & Sachs, J. (2018). Technique and the time of reading. PMLA, 133(5), 1259–1267. http://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2018.133.5.1259

Piper, A. & Wellmon, C. (2017). Publication, power and patronage: On inequality and academic publishing. Critical Inquiry. http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_ academic_publishing/

Polanyi, M. (2009). The Tacit Dimension, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Popper, K. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft, Wien: Springer.

Porter, T. M. (1986). The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Reichenbach, H. (1930). Kausalität und Wahrscheinlichkeit. Erkenntnis, 1, 158–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208615

Reynolds, L. D. & Wilson, N. G. (1991). Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 3rd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rogan, W. J. & Gladen, B. (1978). Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. American Journal of Epidemiology, 107(1), 71–76.

Rogers, D. (1650). Naaman the Syrian, His Disease and Cure, London: Printed by Th. Harper for Philip Nevil.

Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x

Schleiermacher, F. (1977). Hermeneutik und Kritik, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Schultz, W., Preuschoff, K., Camerer, C., Hsu, M., Fiorillo, C.D., Tobler, P.N. and Bossaerts, P. (2008). Explicit neural signals reflecting reward uncertainty. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363: 3801–3811. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0152

Shapin, S. (1994). A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

So, R. J. (2017). All models are wrong. PMLA, 132(3), 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2017.132.3.668

Spellman, B. (2015). A short (personal) future history of revolution 2.0. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 886–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615609918

Stigler, S. (1986). The History of Statistics Before 1900, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Thiessen, E. D. (2017). What’s statistical about learning? Insights from modelling statistical learning as a set of memory processes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 372, 20160056.

Uchiyama, H. T., Saito, D. N., Tanabe, H. C., Harada, T., Seki, A., Ohno, K., Koeda, T., & Sadato, N. (2012). Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm. Cortex, 48(5), 563–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.004

Underwood, T. (2016). Why Literary Periods Mattered, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Valla, L. (2008). On the Donation of Constantine, trans. G. W. Bowersock. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Viswanathan, G. (1989). Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India, New York: Columbia University Press.

Wellmon, C. & Reitter, P. (forthcoming 2021). Permanent Crisis: The Humanities in a Disenchanted Age, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, M. (2000). Interpretivism and generalisation. Sociology, 34(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038500000146

Willinsky, J. (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wolfson, S. J. (1986). The Questioning Presence: Wordsworth, Keats, and the Interrogative Mode in Romantic Poetry, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Can We Be Wrong? The Problem of Textual Evidence in a Time of Data

This Element has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Book description

References

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Book summary page views