|
ArchangeI posted:
There is never any one accepted account of events happening right now, so it's a bit strange that people expect it from history.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
A professor gave a good analogy: history is like studying a palace, but you're only allowed to look through the keyholes. Some things are positioned just right and you get a good view of them. Others are a little to the side and you can see a bit of them. And there are whole rooms you can't see into at all. I can't see history as a science because the interpretation of the same evidence keeps switching around with each new generation. That doesn't keep it from being fun and interesting and even instructive, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I can't see history as a science because the interpretation of the same evidence keeps switching around with each new generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i have bad news about science yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:A professor gave a good analogy: history is like studying a palace, but you're only allowed to look through the keyholes. Some things are positioned just right and you get a good view of them. Others are a little to the side and you can see a bit of them. And there are whole rooms you can't see into at all. "Narratives" are theories, crafted to explain the available data. History's problem is that it can't generate new data very readily, so bickering about which theory best explains the data is about all they can do. Imagine astronomy where they can't build new telescopes and their entire data set consists of blurry photographs taken 100 years ago. Astronomy publications in that world would read very much like history publications in this one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Looking up what the weather was on a day in the past is not a prediction. If you think you can look at an almanac to predict accurately what the weather will be like on July 17, 2206, good luck. This is not true, weather almanacs can be used to make very precise predictions. For example in my area the average temperature for today is 35-50 degrees F, the actual temperature turned out to be 34-53, only a small deviation from historical norms. I feel very comfortable predicting that on January 6 2016, temperatures will probably vary from 30-44, and will almost certainly remain warmer than -7 and cooler than 70. In fact, weather almanacs are about as good at predicting the weather 3+ weeks ahead as the best most detailed computer simulations derived from real-time data. Predicting the weather 200 years in the future faces the obvious problem of global warming changing the parameters, however a prediction based on the weather from the preceding 50 years would probably be fairly accurate and precise. ArchangeI posted:That's the issue, though, historians are writing fiction. We can not, by definition, get a full picture of what has happened in the past because we have to rely on records of flawed human beings. Even photographic evidence etc. is not complete because there is always something just out of frame, something that happened just before or after the picture was taken, which might be important to understanding the whole event. Obviously, the further back you go the more records get lost. So historians craft a narrative out of the available evidence, and emphasize some aspects over others. It's very well researched fiction, but it is fiction nonetheless. Science does not pretend to certainty. Ask an astrophysicist about just how much he and his colleagues disagree. However the truth is we don't need certainty to make predictions. I believe the core of science is reproducability and the creation of testable hypotheses, and good history clearly meets both these criteria. For example I don't need to take Hegel's word that there's a squashed spider in one of her records, I can go to Dresden and look at the little guy itself. If some Medieval chronicler claims 50% of Wimbliminster died of plague in 1295 it follows local church and government records will reflect the drop in population, I.E. the claim is testable. In reality not everything can be checked and confirmed, in which case one must simply accept the uncertainty. In these cases proper historical methods can at least tell us what we are sure we do not know, and that too is valuable. Squalid fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Tankchat: I finished the first draft of the third and likely final instalment in my German Big Cats essay series, this one is about the Panther. Let me know what you think. Also I need a real title and image for the cover page, to make it look like the other two. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4IOAl6nZp3kSUlYQlNheFRHUk0/view?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Ladies and gentlemen, up next, the Big Joffre. Yes, the most accomplished gourmand in Western Europe has invited some friends to Chantilly to join him for a light luncheon, and is presumably hoping for the same thing that Lord Vetinari is in Terry Pratchett's excellent novel Jingo: quote:I do like negotiating with people after the faculty of Unseen University have entertained them to lunch. They tend not to move about much and they'll agree to practically anything if they think there's a chance of a stomach powder and a small glass of water. Mine host has prepared the ground well and after day one of the conference is well on the way to getting whatever he wants agreed to. Meanwhile: Louis Barthas's officers poke fun at the blokes' misfortune, the Bulgarians give some British Empire men a jolly good spanking on their way out of Serbia, the Greek election results are in (the King has his fix, but Venizelos isn't happy) and a number of very high-powered people are now looking at this "retreat to Kut" idea in Mesopotamia and going "hold on a minute, are you sure?" Including the chap whose idea it was. Isn't that peachy? Hazzard posted:You say heretic, I say perfectly valid interpretation of a holy book. It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I am validly interpreting my holy book. You are a heretic. They have been duly convicted by the Inquisition and will be put to death in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
You are aware that even in fields like medical research, there can be widespead reproducibility issues. For history, how the hell can you prevent type 1 and type 2 errors? You have no control group, save for taking one culture and saying it is the standard for all of human existence. Your sample size can be very limited based on area. Furthermore, investigator bias is of magnitudes much higher than the physical sciences. I was under the impression that the whole pure scientific approach, where we could boil human history down to universal principles, was blown up by post-modernism. If our opinion at the time can reflect in a biological experiment, history would have frightening implications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Tankchat: I finished the first draft of the third and likely final instalment in my German Big Cats essay series, this one is about the Panther. Let me know what you think. Also I need a real title and image for the cover page, to make it look like the other two. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4IOAl6nZp3kSUlYQlNheFRHUk0/view?usp=sharing This is great, another really enjoyable read. Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Hypha posted:You are aware that even in fields like medical research, there can be widespead reproducibility issues. For history, how the hell can you prevent type 1 and type 2 errors? You have no control group, save for taking one culture and saying it is the standard for all of human existence. Your sample size can be very limited based on area. Furthermore, investigator bias is of magnitudes much higher than the physical sciences. I was under the impression that the whole pure scientific approach, where we could boil human history down to universal principles, was blown up by post-modernism. If our opinion at the time can reflect in a biological experiment, history would have frightening implications. Well nobody said it was going to be easy...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Just wait until I get to the story about what Petain was doing when the message arrived to tell him to go to Verdun immediately because there was a little problem that needed sorting out... (It was late on Friday night, and he's French. I am sure nobody in here requires a diagram.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Everyone arguing about whether history is a science needs to go read up on the difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Then ponder the difference between those and the arts. Trying to claim that history and chemistry are the same kind of mental discipline is silly, but so is trying to say that history and literature are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
History is part of the Humanities and I will fight you if you say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:History is part of the Humanities and I will fight you if you say otherwise. we are a Social Science, which is why in many universities our building is one of the square ones from the 50s/60s
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:we are a Social Science, which is why in many universities our building is one of the square ones from the 50s/60s In Rostock it's the old Stasi headquarters, complete with old cells in the basement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:we are a Social Science, which is why in many universities our building is one of the square ones from the 50s/60s That sounds like an insult to History to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:we are a Social Science, which is why in many universities our building is one of the square ones from the 50s/60s This is why I don't want History to be a Social Science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
hey, that architecture is Good. it says thick glasses, the space race, and getting some serious stats done
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hey, that architecture is Good. it says thick glasses, the space race, and getting some serious stats done That's a different 50s/60s architecture than what got built at my colleges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:This is why I don't want History to be a Social Science. Ok, time for a sweet modern math building  Oh. Turns out square gray buildings are all the rage anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Just wait until I get to the story about what Petain was doing when the message arrived to tell him to go to Verdun immediately because there was a little problem that needed sorting out...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Ok, time for a sweet modern math building No! I want loving marble columns and neo-classical whatamaroles, drat it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:In Rostock it's the old Stasi headquarters, complete with old cells in the basement. What do they use them for? Wehraboos?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What do they use them for? Wehraboos? Grad student offices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What do they use them for? Wehraboos? "Repeat after me, comrade: T34-85 is best tank." "King Tiger is best taaaaaaaarrgh." "Now, repeat after me. T34-85 is best tank."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Everyone arguing about whether history is a science needs to go read up on the difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Then ponder the difference between those and the arts. Trying to claim that history and chemistry are the same kind of mental discipline is silly, but so is trying to say that history and literature are the same thing. I'm not really keen on the hard/social sciences distinction because my own field, ecology, often shares about as much in common with social sciences like economics and sociology as it does with biology. Stuff like game theory, chaos, qualitative data, often used in circumstances where controlled experimentation isn't possible. Basically the distinction seems arbitrary and conceptual rather than practical. I'm not much of an expert in philosophy of science though so if you think I'm drawing some weird conclusions fill me in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well nobody said it was going to be easy... Yeah, I really don't know what you mean by science. You want truths to be arrived at by formal operations alone? Welcome to Socretes and Plato (that latter of which despised the fact that truth was out there in the messy analog world instead of working from geometric axioms. You want truth where people don't question truth ever? Welcome to communism, where you try to run your whole society on objective truths. The idea that history, or philosophy, or any of the arts or social sciences need to be more like chemistry or physics is a intellectual disease. It has a lot of causes (a desire to have one view made a tyrant above all other views, intellectual inferiority, or a desire to make fields more factory like in structure our output) but the end results are, well, like the Soviet Union in the 1980s: nothing works. Truth is a pretty complex thing when you get down to it. You wouldn't say Physics needs to run itself much more like history, would you? Then why would you think it a good idea to do the opposite? Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not really keen on the hard/social sciences distinction because my own field, ecology, often shares about as much in common with social sciences like economics and sociology as it does with biology. Stuff like game theory, chaos, qualitative data, often used in circumstances where controlled experimentation isn't possible. Basically the distinction seems arbitrary and conceptual rather than practical. I'm not much of an expert in philosophy of science though so if you think I'm drawing some weird conclusions fill me in. Yes, there's no actual divide accepted by either side of the supposed divide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, there's no actual divide accepted by either side of the supposed divide. It's almost like science is not a monolithic thing, but rather a set of tools to be used as necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's almost like science is not a monolithic thing, but rather a set of tools to be used as necessary. Actually it's a proof that "knowledge" inherently bears the sin of vanity, and has been destined by the Lord to run in circles trying to find meaning where it has been abundantly clear all along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
So how that loving Polish bear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So how that loving Polish bear? That bear "bears" the clear sign of the end times. Pray to have your sins forgiven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, I really don't know what you mean by science. You want truths to be arrived at by formal operations alone? Welcome to Socretes and Plato (that latter of which despised the fact that truth was out there in the messy analog world instead of working from geometric axioms. You want truth where people don't question truth ever? Welcome to communism, where you try to run your whole society on objective truths. The idea that history, or philosophy, or any of the arts or social sciences need to be more like chemistry or physics is a intellectual disease. It has a lot of causes (a desire to have one view made a tyrant above all other views, intellectual inferiority, or a desire to make fields more factory like in structure our output) but the end results are, well, like the Soviet Union in the 1980s: nothing works. Truth is a pretty complex thing when you get down to it. You wouldn't say Physics needs to run itself much more like history, would you? Then why would you think it a good idea to do the opposite? I'm not sure what you're getting at but I'm pretty sure the answer to all your rhetorical questions is NO. Deteriorata posted:It's almost like science is not a monolithic thing, but rather a set of tools to be used as necessary. I can agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure what you're getting at but I'm pretty sure the answer to all your rhetorical questions is NO. OK then please explain what you mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
I think the conclusive answer to most of these taxonomic questions like what counts as a science, what counts as art, or what is and isn't a sandwich, is that the whole question depends on a lot of undefined variables, and the answer to the question is ultimately meaningless. It's not like the science police are going to tackle you and take away your textbooks, and there isn't some holy pristine science citadel that will be sullied if other academic fields get too close to it. It's only a meaningless detail to quibble over to try to establish who is king nerd in the room. And I mean, before you can even fully clarify what the boundaries of the term "science" are, there 's still questions like what are the boundaries of "history" as an academic field, because there are plenty of points where it blurs into other fields like archaeology and sociology and parsing out the details for all the various factors is incredibly boring and not worth the time it takes to do it. Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago I think you forgot to link the blog there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
All I've learned from this is that science is like the punk scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So how that loving Polish bear? Seriously, even some soldiers just wouldn't shut up about about bears.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.