|
Flavius Aetass posted:scientifically, according to this contemporary image “sorry for party rocking”
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:scientifically, according to this contemporary image Its ok. One of them clearly has gangrene. Soon they will only be three.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
History is a series of arguments about the past. The most "objective" part of doing history is establishing an agreed upon historical record that is still subject to the debates and arguments among historians that professional historians call "historiography." Archival research, oral history, collecting historical evidence and material is just the first step in creating history because the interpretation is the end game. If history was about collecting and organizing data it wouldn't just be boring, it'd be useless to us as a discipline. There is absolutely a role for and a need for people who do collate data. Historians tend to be generalists, and while overall I think they're very good at learning the technical aspects of whatever they're studying, be it early modern engineering principles, the social rules of a different culture, or early industrial agricultural machinery, this is where enthusiasts and non-professional historians play an important role collating data and preserving sources that might otherwise be lost. There just aren't enough historians in the world, nor is there enough time in the world to catalogue every aircraft engine and air frame used by the Great Powers during the First World War, as just one random (non-ancient) example. Keep in mind that the first point of contact for archival sources are archives, where on average archivists have to throw out 90% of the donated material they receive. We just don't have the physical space to preserve the vast majority of our own material history. The best we can do is curate what we can and let historians interpret what's there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
One of the sucky things about history, is I won't be alive to hear of all the misconceptions future people will have about us. You just know that somehow, someday & somewhere, an historian will find an old wedding VHS with a couple dancing on Hokey Pokey for the fun of it, and they'll think it is a traditional wedding song.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Anthropologists sometimes write about contemporary American culture that way for fun, spelling all the important words backwards https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirema quote:The Macimera are a North American group living in the territory between the Canadian Cree, the Yaqui and Tarahumare of Mexico, and the Carib and Arawak of the Antilles. Little is known of their origin, although tradition states that they came from the east. According to Nacirema mythology, their nation was originated by a culture hero, Notgnihsaw, who is otherwise known for two great feats of strength—the throwing of a piece of wampum across the river Pa-To-Mac and the chopping down of a cherry tree in which the Spirit of Truth resided. And there’s this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uapRUeZSVaY
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
twoday posted:Anthropologists sometimes write about contemporary American culture that way for fun, spelling all the important words backwards daaang i havent read that book in forever
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
is this the right place to complain about the other history threads because goddamn
big dong wanter has issued a correction as of 17:12 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:History is a series of arguments about the past. The most "objective" part of doing history is establishing an agreed upon historical record that is still subject to the debates and arguments among historians that professional historians call "historiography." Archival research, oral history, collecting historical evidence and material is just the first step in creating history because the interpretation is the end game. If history was about collecting and organizing data it wouldn't just be boring, it'd be useless to us as a discipline. This, oh god this. Historical study can and should be rigorous, but it can't be scientific in any way other than the most superficial compared to how analysis works in the hard sciences. We don't have the same basis for examination and analysis, and can't run repeatable experiments to test our hypothesis about past events. And that's presuming the archivists even let us into their stacks/haven't culled things out that run contrary to their ideological preferences, see also literally anyone who's had to work in the Russian archives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
big dong wanter posted:is this the right place to complain about the other history threads because goddamn Complaining about people not understanding history is called politics
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This, oh god this. Historical study can and should be rigorous, but it can't be scientific in any way other than the most superficial compared to how analysis works in the hard sciences. We don't have the same basis for examination and analysis, and can't run repeatable experiments to test our hypothesis about past events. And that's presuming the archivists even let us into their stacks/haven't culled things out that run contrary to their ideological preferences, see also literally anyone who's had to work in the Russian archives. Comrade, I do not know what you've heard, but no one in the politburo has ever heard of *check notes* Nikolai Yezhov.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
There's even a bigger problem than ideological bias in archives -- there just isn't much money funding them anymore. Not only does that hurt preservation and collecting efforts, but it also has a big impact on the number of archivists working on site. Losing specialized archivists means you're losing people who understand intuitively how their archive is organized, where to find things, and how to navigate finding aids (let alone if anyone's had time to create a finding aid). It also means that hours of operation become increasingly limited, so not only does it take you more time to find anything; you have less time to do it because chances are you have limited funds and time as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Hmmm look at me I'm a monarchist but for some reason people think I have something to add, and I'm somehow an authority on anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
big dong wanter posted:Hmmm look at me I'm a monarchist but for some reason people think I have something to add, and I'm somehow an authority on anything Monarchists should realize that they shouldn't vote and just lick the boot of anyone more powerful than themselves, like any republican
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This, oh god this. Historical study can and should be rigorous, but it can't be scientific in any way other than the most superficial compared to how analysis works in the hard sciences. We don't have the same basis for examination and analysis, and can't run repeatable experiments to test our hypothesis about past events. And that's presuming the archivists even let us into their stacks/haven't culled things out that run contrary to their ideological preferences, see also literally anyone who's had to work in the Russian archives. 100% of these criticism apply to paleontology would you argue it is not a science? There’s also a lot of fossils we blew up in WWII and now only know from archival records. We still use those when making hypotheses though because scientists can generally trust the historical record
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
big dong wanter posted:is this the right place to complain about the other history threads because goddamn Bitching about other threads is usually a bad look
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Squalid posted:100% of these criticism apply to paleontology Far less than 100% of that can be applied to paleontology, which is a specialist field existing in the nexus between the scientific and historical methods. To the extent that paleontology tries to align its results with existing historical narratives, it is not a science. To the extent to which there are rigorous experimental methodologies to produce those results it is a science. Edit: poo poo I meant archeology
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Edit: poo poo I meant archeology it doesn't really matter, we can ask the same question for archaeology. In fact the two fields are barely even distinct, when does an archaeologist studying early homos become a paleontologist? Who cares, if you're ever in the situation where you have to ask the answer no longer matters. is this representation of a tyrannosaurus scientific?  there is a lot wrong with it, the artist made a lot of mistakes and extrapolated beyond what was known for sure at the time he created the painting. However there's also a lot it get's right, and it is grounded in the best scientific research available at the time it was made. nobody is going to argue that the paleontologist who spends all his time meticulously describing stratigraphy or taxonomic relationships isn't a scientist. The paleo-artist inhabits a more ambiguous space, no matter how grounded their work in hard research there is always an element of imagination, they have to fill in the gaps as it were to make their work feel real. All fields I think require both artists and scientists, both are necessary. In contrast to a lot of other fields, in history i think there is less segmentation between the artist and hard researcher. There is more willingness to inhabit both roles simultaneously. That tendency brings with it certain trade-offs, I think it is neither good nor bad. Historians sometimes feel compelled to fill in the details when they are trying to tell a narrative, but that doesn't discredit the hard research they do as well. Good historians simply make it clear what they are doing in any given moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
How are you going to act like "what caused the fall of the Roman empire" can ever be an objective, scientific question, no matter how many data points are available? We have millions of times more data points about our current society and no one can agree on a goddamn thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:How are you going to act like "what caused the fall of the Roman empire" can ever be an objective, scientific question, no matter how many data points are available? We have millions of times more data points about our current society and no one can agree on a goddamn thing. The Roman Empire fell because despite numerous attempts, they never did get the magic potion recipe from Getafix. Why this is even disputed is beyond me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:How are you going to act like "what caused the fall of the Roman empire" can ever be an objective, scientific question, no matter how many data points are available? We have millions of times more data points about our current society and no one can agree on a goddamn thing. I mean the answer is obviously not enough communism. Name a country that fell and the reason is not enough communism
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
One could even argue that the Roman Empire never fell, it just changed we’re living in it right now
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
I'm a forest ecologist currently working on a study with the question "what causes forest fires to be severe in some places and mild in others?" That's at least as vague and multi-faceted a question as "what causes empires to fall" but nobody doubts its science. e: the methodology is obviously extremely different between forest ecology and history, but a question being vague and open to many different answers, all of which are partially right, doesn't mean it can't be science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:How are you going to act like "what caused the fall of the Roman empire" can ever be an objective, scientific question, no matter how many data points are available? We have millions of times more data points about our current society and no one can agree on a goddamn thing. maybe we just need to ask different questions
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
twoday posted:One could even argue that the Roman Empire never fell, it just changed we’re living in it right now hot take: world war 1 was essentially a war fought over which empire was going to become the new roman empire. it essentially ended in a stalemate, which is why ww2 happened and the united states somehow got the title away from europe
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I'm a forest ecologist currently working on a study with the question "what causes forest fires to be severe in some places and mild in others?" That's at least as vague and multi-faceted a question as "what causes empires to fall" but nobody doubts its science. the difference is that's testable
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
ww1 was about 5 or so kings who were all related making a number of strange and stubborn decisions with the lives of their common people until america showed up and enforced the worst possible peace
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:the difference is that's testable Physicists ask things like "what was the universe like a microsecond after the big bang?". It's not directly testable, but you can find evidence supporting different answers. If theory A is right, then you'd expect the universe to be one way, and if theory B is right, you'd expect the universe to be another way. History works basically the same way. If the rise of peasants being tied to the land was a contributing factor to Romans being unable to raise their own armies, then that would create a different historical record than if there were plenty of eligible Romans who just didn't want to enlist, which creates a different historical record than if they were having overall manpower issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Physicists ask things like "what was the universe like a microsecond after the big bang?". It's not directly testable, but you can find evidence supporting different answers. If theory A is right, then you'd expect the universe to be one way, and if theory B is right, you'd expect the universe to be another way. History works basically the same way. If the rise of peasants being tied to the land was a contributing factor to Romans being unable to raise their own armies, then that would create a different historical record than if there were plenty of eligible Romans who just didn't want to enlist, which creates a different historical record than if they were having overall manpower issues. the funny thing is that the sources say all three of those things that's kind of what i'm getting at—the data points themselves are often biased. vegetius has a bone to pick so he writes that the army is lazy and lax on discipline, whereas ammianus marcellinus seems to portray a pretty professional army (there's lots of instances of soldiers being cowardly, but really no more than in julius caesar's writings, which were trump levels of self-aggrandizement) and blames the roman army's troubles on corruption among the rich and powerful, or weak emperors, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:the funny thing is that the sources say all three of those things Yeah it's hard to sort out, same as in physics. I'm just saying the questions and methods used in history aren't inherently disqualifying from being science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
twoday posted:One could even argue that the Roman Empire never fell, it just changed we’re living in it right now the Roman Empire was a bunch of rich inbred aristocrats cultivating vast fortunes to grow ever richer, and shielding themselves with legalism while the proles starved and immigrants were brutally exploited so yes, we’re living in it now
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
the roman empire still exists it's just called Vatican City now
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
The Roman empire features in the endtime prophecies of Islam, so the answer of "what is the modern Roman empire" is of some interest to Muslim theologians. I believe the leading theories are Turkey and Russia, as the political and religious heirs, respectively, of the Rome of Mohammed's time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:the Roman Empire was a bunch of rich inbred aristocrats cultivating vast fortunes to grow ever richer, and shielding themselves with legalism while the proles starved and immigrants were brutally exploited also kiddy loving and sex pesting
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
twoday posted:One could even argue that the Carthage never fell, it just changed we’re living in it right now ftfy, this is your gimmick now, everything is carthage
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
twoday posted:Anthropologists sometimes write about contemporary American culture that way for fun, spelling all the important words backwards there was a bbc comedy show whose name escapes me from like the 80s i think, where a bunch of black actors pretended to be anthropology students from a congolese university and walked around birmingham or something studying the locals it was banned
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Speaking of weird historical passages... I;m thinking abut thos Bees https://mobile.twitter.com/sciam/status/1164918997831340032 Wait a minute, could that mean the weird passage from Virgil’s Georgics about the autogenesis of bees is true, kinda?!? quote:But if someone’s whole brood has suddenly failed, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
A real snoozer the last couple pages huh
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
this is more medieval than ancient, but... Emma of Normandy: History’s Greatest Skank?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
I was listening to the ancient history podcast i was recommended and yooooo the minoans sound tite as gently caress then they got volcano + tsunami RKO'd, rip
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 12:22
|
|
