Look. You are doing it wrong. You never EVER rely on a single source to determine the truth. You blanket the field as much as possible before you formulate your own opinion on what the truth is. The wider the sample, the better tools you have on arriving at the right answer. This is true for all sciences.

I live in a country where the religious right is trying to rewrite natural history in our schools. Maybe India is in a worse state in that regard, but the absolute worse thing you can do for your nation is to abandon history. Once you have abandoned it they have won. They can fill the void with whatever the fuck they want.

What you need to be doing is the exact opposite. Explore history as much as possible and from as many and diverse sources as possible. That is the only way to beat them, period. To give up is to give in. Don't be such a defeatist.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

but one needs degrees to challenge them, journalists cannot, ordinary people cannot, where exactly do they challenge in?. Peer reviews which is dominated by a large section of the very peoples views one is opposing?.

Ahh! You are one of those. The conspiracy of science! I don't think there is much point taking this argument any further then. I concede.

bullshit, neil degrasse tyson or any other physicist can easily in any debate or by pointing to appropriate material show any journalist or for that matter any ordinary person wrong. It is true in any field which is based on evidence , but it is not the case so in fields which are dominated by ideology, not evidence. In Indian history dept for example that seems to be the case, many of them simply do not accept that Muslims kings in India were bigots, Islam when it came to India did do great damage, especially to India's scientific traditions, Indias universities ended in the same period. Their agenda is to paint a secular past for India's secular future , they try to over balance history and in turn become easy targets for the right wing hindu parties, and when people put in works which try to show the other way, they simply engage in ad hominem but never speak about works. True of even the most famous and established historians in India. So yes, I do have an evidence which shows that history as a field is what people make of it. True even of colonial historians as well.

If you don't like the source, pick another for fucks sake. I've been saying this from the very beginning. You are arguing from a perspective of intellectual laziness. Because the government hands their story to you on a silver platter in your public schools is no excuse for not getting off your ass and doing some goddamn research. You are devaluing an entire institution of study because one organization with an agenda handed you a rotten apple. There is another world outside of India. And in that other world there are people from all walks of life and all backgrounds who have studied, IMPARTIALLY, Indian political history.

And what if they do not speak about these issues, maintain noble silence or better come to support their colleagues with whom they have long association with or do not contest them ?.
And of all the strange things, historians have historiography, which is meta analysis, of study of the works of historians writing history.
Which takes into account who is writing history and whether the political atmosphere in which one were writing history effects it or not and not just the changing methods of history, but there is no period where politics does not exist, no time when govts will not try to have some measure of control on what people believe in. I dont think US history teaches its people of its motives for war or its hand in some very nasty business outside, or the leading families which profit from those wars.
And that is where science stands out, there may be bias and fights over priority but it does not need impartial researchers, it works because science works!.

I live in a country where the religious right is trying to rewrite natural history in our schools. Maybe India is in a worse state in that regard, but the absolute worse thing you can do for your nation is to abandon history. Once you have abandoned it they have won. They can fill the void with whatever the fuck they want.

What you need to be doing is the exact opposite. Explore history as much as possible and from as many and diverse sources as possible. That is the only way to beat them, period. To give up is to give in. Don't be such a defeatist.

I am not a defeatist, but the problem is this, your credibility goes up if you are citations go up, your citations go up if your colleagues cite you,but why should they if their ideology is different?. In science this works because science works, how does one make sure otherwise, just believe that all researchers are IMPARTIAL?.
So, no, for me, it is a debate based on evidence, not people who have more citations in disciplines where we cannot clearly set up experiments to test. Galileo was great to me not because of his theories, but because he stood on a tower and dropped objects of different weights and they fell down simultaneously.
Eddington who was a great astrophysicist ridiculed Chandrasekhar's thesis on black hole, it wasnt impartiality which brought him credit, neils bohr supported him and so did many others, but in secret, they werent willing to challenge Eddington. And that should shock anyone, that neils bohr wasnt willing to challenge Eddington even if he considered Chandrasekhar's thesis to have merit.
so, impartiality is necessary in science to a measure unlike any other feild (of course they may steal from their students or colleagues but thats different).

jamest wrote:

Paul G wrote:Who is we?

The majority, I would say, as it's the majority which lend legitimacy to the authorities that dictate our paths.

The majority of what, historians? Have you studied any history at an academic level?

Paul G wrote:

jamest wrote:

Paul G wrote:Who is we?

The majority, I would say, as it's the majority which lend legitimacy to the authorities that dictate our paths.

The majority of what, historians? Have you studied any history at an academic level?

No, I haven't studied history at that level. Yet I don't see my initial question as necessarily requiring the expertise of a historian in order to find a satisfactory answer. The question transcends history, really, in that it seeks comparisons of our nature. Essentially, I'm asking whether our nature has changed as a consequence of reading history.

Any reference to 'we' has to be a generalism, of course. Clearly, some individuals have learnt a lot from studying history, but this isn't significant regards world affairs. When I ask if 'we' have learnt anything from history, for example, I'm talking about societies as a whole. As a whole, we have to take responsibility for the way things are because as a whole we lend legitimacy to the authorities which dictate 'world affairs' (and create history).

So where do we go from here?

Paul G wrote:So where do we go from here?

I've given it more thought and now think that virphen was actually close to the truth when he talked about all of the progress in the last 50 years or so. I'm thinking from the basis of what I said to you about 'we':

Any reference to 'we' has to be a generalism, of course. Clearly, some individuals have learnt a lot from studying history, but this isn't significant regards world affairs. When I ask if 'we' have learnt anything from history, for example, I'm talking about societies as a whole. As a whole, we have to take responsibility for the way things are because as a whole we lend legitimacy to the authorities which dictate 'world affairs' (and create history).

... If we accept that the masses are largely responsible for the way things are, then it should come as no surprise that 'we' did not appear to learn [much] from history until more recent times. Why? Because until recent times the masses were illiterate and generally uneducated and also lacked means of extensive communication. Consequently, the 'old order' was largely preserved so that any significant progress was slow to happen.

The 20th century saw a boom, relatively speaking, of education amongst the masses - not to mention their increased democratic right to vote. Add to that their ability to communicate more freely (telephones; flying; cars; trains; then computers and the internet) and we have the perfect conditions whereby, finally, 'we' can actually challenge the legitimacy of our authorities and bring more pressure upon them to effect changes more indicative of progress. Hence, as virphen stated, we've seen a lot of progress in recent times which might finally indicate that 'we' are indeed learning from history.

If this is correct, then it wasn't a case that 'we' didn't learn from history, but that 'we' were unable to until relatively recently.

The question whether "we" learn from history is oversimplified. The lessons from previous events are spottily applied, and sometimes things improve even if historical knowledge is suppressed. There are countries that have drawn the right conclusions from historical events (e.g. Germany - rampant nationalism = bad, cooperation and peace = good, or Japan, which is way less imperialistic post-WW2 despite suppression of knowledge about Japanese atrocities 1937-45), and there are countries that are still infant democracies (or less) that think that the lessons of WW2 (or other conflicts) cannot be applied on them. So "we" is a misnomer, as some countries have learnt something, while others haven't. Europe was a hotbed of nationalism and strife, but the EU project has managed to keep the peace for a record time now, and that was because it was evident that countries which trade with each other and which seek harmony are less prone to start wars. The post-WW2 conflicts in Europe have been civil wars (Yugoslavia) or within the Eastern Bloc (Hungary, Czechoslovakia); western and northern Europe haven't experienced a longer period of peace than those post-WW2. Obviously, something was learned. As for the post-colonial countries and fledgling democracies, many of them seem intent to learn the hard way. Jingoism, nationalism, suppression of free speech, corruption and other factors contribute to conflicts. So, the question ought to be "why do some learn something useful from history, while others don't?".

Varangian wrote:The question whether "we" learn from history is oversimplified. The lessons from previous events are spottily applied, and sometimes things improve even if historical knowledge is suppressed. There are countries that have drawn the right conclusions from historical events (e.g. Germany - rampant nationalism = bad, cooperation and peace = good, or Japan, which is way less imperialistic post-WW2 despite suppression of knowledge about Japanese atrocities 1937-45),

Do you have a theory as to why similar lessons weren't learnt from WW1?

and there are countries that are still infant democracies (or less) that think that the lessons of WW2 (or other conflicts) cannot be applied on them.

Can you be more specific?

jamest wrote:

Varangian wrote:The question whether "we" learn from history is oversimplified. The lessons from previous events are spottily applied, and sometimes things improve even if historical knowledge is suppressed. There are countries that have drawn the right conclusions from historical events (e.g. Germany - rampant nationalism = bad, cooperation and peace = good, or Japan, which is way less imperialistic post-WW2 despite suppression of knowledge about Japanese atrocities 1937-45),

Do you have a theory as to why similar lessons weren't learnt from WW1?

It was a time of great social upheaval (at least three monarchies were toppled), democracy was something new, the Versailles Treaty resulted in "the peace to end all peace", the economy was in turmoil... The nationalism of the 19th century wasn't weakened by the war; if anything, it became even stronger. The League of Nations was powerless. Some countries drew conclusions that proved to be fatal in 1938-41. UK and France, which together had lost over 2 million soldiers, were quick to appease Hitler when things started to heat up less than a generation later. In short: not enough history had happened to drive the lesson home.

jamest wrote:

Varangian wrote:and there are countries that are still infant democracies (or less) that think that the lessons of WW2 (or other conflicts) cannot be applied on them.

Can you be more specific?

Some countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. They are usually in the news.

Varangian wrote:

jamest wrote:

Varangian wrote:The question whether "we" learn from history is oversimplified. The lessons from previous events are spottily applied, and sometimes things improve even if historical knowledge is suppressed. There are countries that have drawn the right conclusions from historical events (e.g. Germany - rampant nationalism = bad, cooperation and peace = good, or Japan, which is way less imperialistic post-WW2 despite suppression of knowledge about Japanese atrocities 1937-45),

Do you have a theory as to why similar lessons weren't learnt from WW1?

It was a time of great social upheaval (at least three monarchies were toppled), democracy was something new, the Versailles Treaty resulted in "the peace to end all peace", the economy was in turmoil... The nationalism of the 19th century wasn't weakened by the war; if anything, it became even stronger. The League of Nations was powerless. Some countries drew conclusions that proved to be fatal in 1938-41. UK and France, which together had lost over 2 million soldiers, were quick to appease Hitler when things started to heat up less than a generation later. In short: not enough history had happened to drive the lesson home..

Which essentially comes down to hindsight. WWI and WWII were two very different circumstances. There is no blanket lesson of war and how to avoid it as there are many different reasons for it occurring. But if you were to try to pin it down to a single lesson, it is that democracies generally do not go to war with other democracies. In the time between WWI and WWII, there was absolutely no way Europe would would suddenly accept democracy across the board. It takes a very long time for the spread of democracy and we are still in that process even after 50 years as seen in the middle east and North Africa. But it is happening. And it is improving.

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

Are you saying that those that do the 'evil' can't learn from history? That they can't manipulate that knowledge to their own ends, history is available to all, for whatever ends. What you seem to be asking is, shouldn't knowledge from history naturally lead to a better society, and I can think that that would only happen in a true democracy, where those less concerned with power and politics have their say...

As to the question of whether humanity has progressed, I dunno, maybe read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, I mean, do you take your children to public executions then beat them afterwards so that the experience 'sticks'?

It was thought that the way for children to get over their fears was to make them face fear even more concretely, so adults used to take children on visits to the gibbet to inspect rotting corpses hanging there, while being told moral stories. Classes used to be taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would also sometimes take their children to hangings and then beat them when they returned home to make them remember what they had seen. Even humanists, like Mafio Vegio, who protested the severe beating of children, would admit that "to let them witness a public execution is sometimes not at all a bad thing."

Lloyd deMause

U-96 wrote:

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

Are you saying that those that do the 'evil' can't learn from history? That they can't manipulate that knowledge to their own ends, history is available to all, for whatever ends. What you seem to be asking is, shouldn't knowledge from history naturally lead to a better society, and I can think that that would only happen in a true democracy, where those less concerned with power and politics have their say...

As to the question of whether humanity has progressed, I dunno, maybe read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, I mean, do you take your children to public executions then beat them afterwards so that the experience 'sticks'?

It was thought that the way for children to get over their fears was to make them face fear even more concretely, so adults used to take children on visits to the gibbet to inspect rotting corpses hanging there, while being told moral stories. Classes used to be taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would also sometimes take their children to hangings and then beat them when they returned home to make them remember what they had seen. Even humanists, like Mafio Vegio, who protested the severe beating of children, would admit that "to let them witness a public execution is sometimes not at all a bad thing."

Lloyd deMause

that is because they had no police force, no jails. When there are no jails, people think that the fear of the consequences for the crime might stop the kids from taking that path, much like parents today might say to kids that if they steal, they will go to jail.

cavarka9 wrote:

U-96 wrote:

jamest wrote:I love history. I think that one can learn much from it other than the actual facts one reads about it - we form [moral/ethical] values not just from experience, but through 'external' knowledge of others' experiences. Though when one, for example, reads 20th century history in comparison to 1st century history, humanity itself doesn't seem to have made that much progress: still lotsa wars, power struggles, political bullshit, strategic alliances... same old shit really, for different reasons. So, why hasn't our knowledge of history had any impact upon our actual human progress? I just don't gettit.

Are you saying that those that do the 'evil' can't learn from history? That they can't manipulate that knowledge to their own ends, history is available to all, for whatever ends. What you seem to be asking is, shouldn't knowledge from history naturally lead to a better society, and I can think that that would only happen in a true democracy, where those less concerned with power and politics have their say...

As to the question of whether humanity has progressed, I dunno, maybe read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, I mean, do you take your children to public executions then beat them afterwards so that the experience 'sticks'?

It was thought that the way for children to get over their fears was to make them face fear even more concretely, so adults used to take children on visits to the gibbet to inspect rotting corpses hanging there, while being told moral stories. Classes used to be taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would also sometimes take their children to hangings and then beat them when they returned home to make them remember what they had seen. Even humanists, like Mafio Vegio, who protested the severe beating of children, would admit that "to let them witness a public execution is sometimes not at all a bad thing."

Lloyd deMause

that is because they had no police force, no jails. When there are no jails, people think that the fear of the consequences for the crime might stop the kids from taking that path, much like parents today might say to kids that if they steal, they will go to jail.

Modern day Psychotherapists would tend to see what parents did in the past, taking kids to morgues, executions then beatings etc as child abuse in these modern times of ours, not sure if they'd put it inline with telling kids 'that if they steal, they will go to jail', as harsh as that sounds. Your police force/jail theory is interesting, from whom did you read that, or did you just make it up?

i couldnt think of any other reason why they would allow kids to watch other than to scare them.

"I don't deny that some states of human history are better than other states. Europe in 1990 was better than Europe in 1940. I don't deny that. And I don't deny that some programmes of reform have enhanced the lot of human beings to a considerable extent. And peace is better than war, freedom is better than anarchy, prosperity is better than poverty, pleasure is better than pain, beauty is better than ugliness. But there is a another very specific belief that I would guess you subscribe to: the belief that advances in ethics or politics can in principle become like advances in science in the sense of being cumulative. This is the belief that there is nothing inherent in human life or human nature to prevent cumulative improvement. We'll get to the point where there is no poverty in the world, where there is no anarchy in the world. My view is that all gains in ethics and politics are real but they are all also reversible and all will be reversed and often reversed very easily. For example, I know many liberal humanists myself and I know that when I said two and a half years ago that torture would come back, they were incredulous. That doesn't tell me they are stupid. That tells me they are in the grip of a belief that makes such a thing unthinkable. They have a narrative, a notion of stages. But when I look at history I don't see any kind of thread, however tenuous, however sometimes broken. What I see is cyclical change, cyclical transformation."

John Gray.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/939

cavarka9 wrote:i couldnt think of any other reason why they would allow kids to watch other than to scare them.

Yes I don't think that's in doubt.

logical bob wrote:"I don't deny ... cyclical transformation."

John Gray.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/939

Sigh, when people lay down a big slab of quoted text it's usually cause they can't think of anything constructive and they hope the text has enough keywords and authority to carry some relevance, sad. If you want to engage in (your own) discussion, then, you know... try it. Then quote someone that supports (hopefully) your views. Do you really agree with Gray here? This is a big discussion of politics vs society, US democracy vs other democracies etc, a bigger discussion than it seems you're willing to engage in.

U-96 wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:i couldnt think of any other reason why they would allow kids to watch other than to scare them.

Yes I don't think that's in doubt.

logical bob wrote:"I don't deny ... cyclical transformation."

John Gray.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/939

Sigh, when people lay down a big slab of quoted text it's usually cause they can't think of anything constructive and they hope the text has enough keywords and authority to carry some relevance, sad. If you want to engage in (your own) discussion, then, you know... try it. Then quote someone that supports (hopefully) your views. Do you really agree with Gray here? This is a big discussion of politics vs society, US democracy vs other democracies etc, a bigger discussion than it seems you're willing to engage in.

I am willing argue almost anypoint from any side including the most difficult positions only for the sake of arguments to see how it goes but you must wait for a week or 2 weeks, very busy. But I do not see the relevance of quoting people if there is weight in the argument itself. I dont believe in such things, I do believe in progress in terms of our empathy, it could be lost ofcourse at anytime but it is possible, the method of science is building hypothesis and checking with evidence. History unfortunately does not yet have a dialectic which is free from bias in my opinion, if they are capable of building a dialectic , like say algebra is used, a mathematical framework in social sciences then yes I am willing to buy that, but progress as an ideal is different from whether we shall be capable of reaching that or not.

hmmm, maybe we ought to rate comments in this site based on merit.

Sigh. Sorry if the quote bothers you so much.

There is progress in science and technology because knowledge here is cumulative and because it's led in a particular direction by how the world actually is. In terms of the OP we can chart scientific progress from the 1st century because we can see how developments depend on earlier developments, even if some things were forgotten for a while along the way.

It's not at all clear that there is such a thing as moral or social progress. Even if we feel that things are better now than they were in the 1st century this isn't necessarily progress in the same way. It doesn't seem to build on past achievements and there's no reason to think things won't be worse again in the future. It seems naive to think that there is a correct answer that society is developing towards in the same way that science develops in the correct direction.

Is that any better?

logical bob wrote:Sigh. Sorry if the quote bothers you so much.

Yes I have real issues with the quote.

There is progress in science and technology because knowledge here is cumulative and because it's led in a particular direction by how the world actually is. In terms of the OP we can chart scientific progress from the 1st century because we can see how developments depend on earlier developments, even if some things were forgotten for a while along the way.

So your point is that scientific advancement is separate and distinct from society, like our scientific understanding of Psychology, Philosophy, Evolution, etc, as well as the social sciences, they do not effect societal attitudes at all? Do you think these might actually benefit our society through understanding? Take for example our understanding of genes and race for one... and how does it all effect law, education etc?

It's not at all clear that there is such a thing as moral or social progress. Even if we feel that things are better now than they were in the 1st century this isn't necessarily progress in the same way. It doesn't seem to build on past achievements and there's no reason to think things won't be worse again in the future. It seems naive to think that there is a correct answer that society is developing towards in the same way that science develops in the correct direction.

There's no reason to think that scientific advancement couldn't regress in the future also, as in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. As for your belief that there's no such thing as social progress, well you know, you just prove it... but first prove that scientific progress is distinct from societal progress.

Is that any better?

Is you putting down your own argument in your own words any better? Yes... Yes it is.