Talk:Arts and Humanities Citation Index

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Top ten most highly cited doubted

The list compiled below is based on the A&HCI publication in the year 2000 of the most frequently cited individuals/works in the last 7 years, i.e. from 1993-2000. The top 10 were, in order of highest to lowest frequency, as follows:

Noam Chomsky is the only living member of the above list.

The above seems to suggest that there is no more danger of "Two Cultures" between sciences and humanities that were so bitterly deplored by C. P. Snow (1959). The five contemporaries, as indicated above, are not purely men of art but rather of science who without exception made so radical scientific claims or hypotheses, though quite unfalsifiable and even pseudo-scientific.

In short, let us note Noam Chomsky, for example, as "the only living member of the above list." While he is basically a grammarian who might be traditionally regarded as a man of art, he starts from such a radical scientific hypothesis called innatism, hence a radical man of science.

In 1959, Snow spoke loud of Two Cultures, and Chomsky scathingly reviewed behaviorist (scientist) B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior published in the same year (1957) as Chomsky's Syntactic Structures. Either is a highly scientific work indeed. Unfortunately, however, a vital rationalist challenged a vital empiricist. This occasion is ascribed to the cognitive revolution, ill or well.

Is grammar science or art? Simply, it is science, as the word order is analogous to the world order, though the former may be called culture, while the latter nature. Either is science as far as it tries to be objective. Literary criticism, traditionally regarded as art, is in fact a science as far as it aims for objectivity rather than subjectivity of which it is so often suspected.

Such a scientific hypothesis as Chomsky's innatism may or may not result in objectivity. He is as scientific as his scientific approach, however objective or subjective after all. It is a greatest mystery why men of art cite such a man of science as Chomsky more than anyone else of their kind. Do the "Two Cultures" exist any longer? --KYPark (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arts and Humanities Citation Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]