Is it just subjective opinion?
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
igorfrankensteen wrote:As to History being a Science, or similar to a Science, I personally disagree, and further, would point out that the suggestion that it NEEDS to be one, and the way that some people try to suggest that it is, is an excellent example of something the Historians disciplines can illuminate, and that no hard sciences can. It is an indication of the modern, extremely UNscientific near worship of Science, which some Historians have been tracking.
Make no mistake, I am certainly not even remotely a fanatical warrior Historian, dedicated to proving the worthiness of the subject, or anything like that. I am concerned entirely with correctly recognizing reality, via the appropriate use of the many tools that Humans have to work with.
Which leads to a point which should be noted in connection with the idea of trying to turn History into an official Science of some sort.
I suggest for consideration, that using the wrong tool, or the wrong mechanism or the wrong experimental concepts to attempt to conduct Scientific investigations, is considered by scientists to be non-scientific behavior. Demanding that something which is obviously not repeatable be tested for repeatability, is more than absurd. It's ingenuous.
I also suggest for consideration, that the Sciences themselves, do not consist entirely of the study of repeating mechanisms. Simple example, the scientific examination of how the Universe came to be as it is, does not require that someone repeat the creation of a universe in order to provide support for it.
MS2 wrote:Sendraks wrote:My experience with historians is that information gets broken down into two sections when being disseminated.
1 - what the evidence tells us.
2 - what we might conjecture from that to fill in any blanks in the evidence.
It's usually pretty clear where the line between 1 and 2 is.
It seems to me to get less clear the further you go back in time.
MS2 wrote:But maybe I'm thinking here of those TV programmes that 'fill in the blanks' almost to the exclusion of everything else in order to tell us startling new conclusions. Perhaps the academic papers are far more circumspect?
MS2 wrote:Sendraks wrote:My experience with historians is that information gets broken down into two sections when being disseminated.
1 - what the evidence tells us.
2 - what we might conjecture from that to fill in any blanks in the evidence.
It's usually pretty clear where the line between 1 and 2 is.
It's interesting how you phrase 1. To my mind, evidence doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Interpretation suffers the problem of subjectivity. I gave the example earlier of an archaeologist having to decide a pot fits a particular style. Do you not think this is an issue?
Scientists look to overcome subjectivity by repeating experiments, but historians can't do that.
Darwinsbulldog wrote:igorfrankensteen wrote:As to History being a Science, or similar to a Science, I personally disagree, and further, would point out that the suggestion that it NEEDS to be one, and the way that some people try to suggest that it is, is an excellent example of something the Historians disciplines can illuminate, and that no hard sciences can. It is an indication of the modern, extremely UNscientific near worship of Science, which some Historians have been tracking.
Make no mistake, I am certainly not even remotely a fanatical warrior Historian, dedicated to proving the worthiness of the subject, or anything like that. I am concerned entirely with correctly recognizing reality, via the appropriate use of the many tools that Humans have to work with.
Which leads to a point which should be noted in connection with the idea of trying to turn History into an official Science of some sort.
I suggest for consideration, that using the wrong tool, or the wrong mechanism or the wrong experimental concepts to attempt to conduct Scientific investigations, is considered by scientists to be non-scientific behavior. Demanding that something which is obviously not repeatable be tested for repeatability, is more than absurd. It's ingenuous.
I also suggest for consideration, that the Sciences themselves, do not consist entirely of the study of repeating mechanisms. Simple example, the scientific examination of how the Universe came to be as it is, does not require that someone repeat the creation of a universe in order to provide support for it.
But surely historians can form falsifiable hypotheses and then test them. One can posit, for example, that an environmental disaster could have caused the end of a civilization, or at least contributed towards it. Then you can look at the geological/archeological evidence which supports or refutes it.
I see no essential difference between such a study and palaeontologists posting that a creature could have existed at a certain point in the past with a mosaic of features of both fish and tetrapod, and naming it Tiktaalik? Not all science is lab experiments anyway. So long as the process is not biased or circular I would have no problem calling history a science. it uses reason, tests hypotheses with the available evidence, papers are published and works reviewed.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:Sendraks wrote:My experience with historians is that information gets broken down into two sections when being disseminated.
1 - what the evidence tells us.
2 - what we might conjecture from that to fill in any blanks in the evidence.
It's usually pretty clear where the line between 1 and 2 is.
It's interesting how you phrase 1. To my mind, evidence doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Interpretation suffers the problem of subjectivity. I gave the example earlier of an archaeologist having to decide a pot fits a particular style. Do you not think this is an issue?
Scientists look to overcome subjectivity by repeating experiments, but historians can't do that.
Like Clive pointed out, science =/= repeating experiments.
It's based on falsification and verification.
In history this means, not repeating experiments, but to analyse the available historical evidence and see whether it supports or contradicts your theory.
MS2 wrote:
Hmmm. I think some people would regard it as being one of the humanities rather than a soft science.
MS2 wrote: But OK, I can see (as illustrated by this thread!) that some see it as a science. For myself, I agree that done well it will be open to revising its hypotheses in the light of new evidence, and in some ways this can be seen as equivalent to the testing that goes on in science, but I'm not sure that makes it actual science.
MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:Sendraks wrote:My experience with historians is that information gets broken down into two sections when being disseminated.
1 - what the evidence tells us.
2 - what we might conjecture from that to fill in any blanks in the evidence.S
It's usually pretty clear where the line between 1 and 2 is.
It's interesting how you phrase 1. To my mind, evidence doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Interpretation suffers the problem of subjectivity. I gave the example earlier of an archaeologist having to decide a pot fits a particular style. Do you not think this is an issue?
Scientists look to overcome subjectivity by repeating experiments, but historians can't do that.
Like Clive pointed out, science =/= repeating experiments.
Clive did claim that, but I'm not sure he is right.
MS2 wrote: My understanding is that science consists in the formulation of hypotheses which can be tested by repeatable experiment. uch experiments can include things like surveys in the soft sciences. History though, involves hypotheses about things that took place long ago, where surveys aren't possible.
MS2 wrote:It's based on falsification and verification.
In history this means, not repeating experiments, but to analyse the available historical evidence and see whether it supports or contradicts your theory.
Agreed. And this is a feature that does make it like science.
MS2 wrote:What's your view on my piece of pottery example, by the way? Do you agree that it requires subjective interpretation?
MS2 wrote: And if so, what do historians do to overcome it? As I understand it, it would be a matter reaching consensus among experts?
MS2 wrote: (I'm not asking any of this to try to denigrate history, by the way, despite what some people seem to be thinking. I just thought it was an interesting issue.)
Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:
It's interesting how you phrase 1. To my mind, evidence doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Interpretation suffers the problem of subjectivity. I gave the example earlier of an archaeologist having to decide a pot fits a particular style. Do you not think this is an issue?
Scientists look to overcome subjectivity by repeating experiments, but historians can't do that.
Like Clive pointed out, science =/= repeating experiments.
Clive did claim that, but I'm not sure he is right.
But he is.MS2 wrote: My understanding is that science consists in the formulation of hypotheses which can be tested by repeatable experiment. uch experiments can include things like surveys in the soft sciences. History though, involves hypotheses about things that took place long ago, where surveys aren't possible.
That's an asburdly specific definition of science.
MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
But he is.MS2 wrote: My understanding is that science consists in the formulation of hypotheses which can be tested by repeatable experiment. uch experiments can include things like surveys in the soft sciences. History though, involves hypotheses about things that took place long ago, where surveys aren't possible.
That's an asburdly specific definition of science.
'Absurdly' - really?
MS2 wrote: You couldn' t just say something like 'in my opinion more specific than is appropriate'?
MS2 wrote: I was hoping to have a friendly discussion but obviously you prefer a different approach.
MS2 wrote: So I'm not going to respond any further to the rest of your post, other than to say if I'm being absurdly specific perhaps wiki is also when it discusses the scientific method (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:
Clive did claim that, but I'm not sure he is right.
But he is.MS2 wrote: My understanding is that science consists in the formulation of hypotheses which can be tested by repeatable experiment. uch experiments can include things like surveys in the soft sciences. History though, involves hypotheses about things that took place long ago, where surveys aren't possible.
That's an asburdly specific definition of science.
'Absurdly' - really?
Yes really.MS2 wrote: You couldn' t just say something like 'in my opinion more specific than is appropriate'?
I couldn't since that was not what I was trying to say.MS2 wrote: I was hoping to have a friendly discussion but obviously you prefer a different approach.
With all due respect, that's nonsense.
I'm calling the definition you're providing absurd, not you.
It has nothing to do with friendly or not friendly.
It's a jdugment on the definition, not you as a person.
MS2 wrote: So I'm not going to respond any further to the rest of your post, other than to say if I'm being absurdly specific perhaps wiki is also when it discusses the scientific method (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
Not replying because someone uses words you don't like isn't conducive to a rational discussion either.
Again, I was merely commenting on the definition you provided, not you as a person.
Other than that, I already explained why 'repeated experiments' is an inaccurate description as it tend to create the image of lab experiments, whereas in fields like history, paleontology etc, the tests of an hypothesis consist of reviewing the available evidence. Both are examples of applying the scientific method.
Darwinsbulldog:
But surely historians can form falsifiable hypotheses and then test them. One can posit, for example, that an environmental disaster could have caused the end of a civilization, or at least contributed towards it. Then you can look at the geological/archeological evidence which supports or refutes it.
I see no essential difference between such a study and palaeontologists posting that a creature could have existed at a certain point in the past with a mosaic of features of both fish and tetrapod, and naming it Tiktaalik? Not all science is lab experiments anyway. So long as the process is not biased or circular I would have no problem calling history a science. it uses reason, tests hypotheses with the available evidence, papers are published and works reviewed.
MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yes really.MS2 wrote: You couldn' t just say something like 'in my opinion more specific than is appropriate'?
I couldn't since that was not what I was trying to say.MS2 wrote: I was hoping to have a friendly discussion but obviously you prefer a different approach.
With all due respect, that's nonsense.
I'm calling the definition you're providing absurd, not you.
It has nothing to do with friendly or not friendly.
It's a jdugment on the definition, not you as a person.
I know that. I didn't claim you were making a judgement about me. My point was that my definition was clearly not 'absurd'.
MS2 wrote: It may have been, as you also said, overly-specific. But it clearly was not 'absurd'.
MS2 wrote:I subsequently provided you with a quote from wiki to show it was in line with a mainstream 'source' (subject to all the usual caveats about wiki of course). Yet you had decided to call it absurd.
MS2 wrote:Which suggests to me that you both want to shout me down and also aren't open to considering whether there may be some value in what I have to say.
MS2 wrote: That is OK. You don't have to listen to my perspective if you don't want to.
MS2 wrote: But since that is how I perceive your attitude I'd rather not continue the conversation.
MS2 wrote: I'm certainly not going to engage in another one of those fruitless arguments peppered with comments like 'that's nonsense' that so often go on.
MS2 wrote:MS2 wrote: So I'm not going to respond any further to the rest of your post, other than to say if I'm being absurdly specific perhaps wiki is also when it discusses the scientific method (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
Not replying because someone uses words you don't like isn't conducive to a rational discussion either.
Again, I was merely commenting on the definition you provided, not you as a person.
Other than that, I already explained why 'repeated experiments' is an inaccurate description as it tend to create the image of lab experiments, whereas in fields like history, paleontology etc, the tests of an hypothesis consist of reviewing the available evidence. Both are examples of applying the scientific method.
Right, so I wasn't being so much 'absurd' as using words which you think create a misleading image!
Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:MS2 wrote:
'Absurdly' - really?
Yes really.MS2 wrote: You couldn' t just say something like 'in my opinion more specific than is appropriate'?
I couldn't since that was not what I was trying to say.MS2 wrote: I was hoping to have a friendly discussion but obviously you prefer a different approach.
With all due respect, that's nonsense.
I'm calling the definition you're providing absurd, not you.
It has nothing to do with friendly or not friendly.
It's a jdugment on the definition, not you as a person.
I know that. I didn't claim you were making a judgement about me. My point was that my definition was clearly not 'absurd'.
Then why the comment about 'having a friendly discussion' and me 'preferring a different approach'?MS2 wrote: It may have been, as you also said, overly-specific. But it clearly was not 'absurd'.
If it's overly specific to the point it excludes things that are also scientific, it is absurd.MS2 wrote:I subsequently provided you with a quote from wiki to show it was in line with a mainstream 'source' (subject to all the usual caveats about wiki of course). Yet you had decided to call it absurd.
And I've repeatedly explained why.
An argumentum ad lexicum, especially when employing wikipedia, won't change that.MS2 wrote:Which suggests to me that you both want to shout me down and also aren't open to considering whether there may be some value in what I have to say.
Utter nonsense.
First of all, I cannot shout you down.
You're completely free to post or not. Unlike a verbal conversation I can do nothing to 'shout you down'.
Secondly, all I did was express that the definition is absurd. That in no way implies an intent by me to shut you up or shout you down. Nor does it express close-mindedness.
Please adress what I actually post instead of making assumptions about my motives.MS2 wrote: That is OK. You don't have to listen to my perspective if you don't want to.
Again, I have not expressed any such motive.MS2 wrote: But since that is how I perceive your attitude I'd rather not continue the conversation.
A rationa and honest discussion requires that you engage with what people actually post and not with imagined motives.
If I wished to dismiss you or your posts out of hand, I would have done so.MS2 wrote: I'm certainly not going to engage in another one of those fruitless arguments peppered with comments like 'that's nonsense' that so often go on.
This is beginning to sound more and more like tone-policing in lieu of actually adressing my points.
Now, unlike what you've done, I'm not going to pre-assume that's what you're doing and ask you to adress what I actually post and not dismiss things based on the words I use.MS2 wrote:MS2 wrote: So I'm not going to respond any further to the rest of your post, other than to say if I'm being absurdly specific perhaps wiki is also when it discusses the scientific method (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
Not replying because someone uses words you don't like isn't conducive to a rational discussion either.
Again, I was merely commenting on the definition you provided, not you as a person.
Other than that, I already explained why 'repeated experiments' is an inaccurate description as it tend to create the image of lab experiments, whereas in fields like history, paleontology etc, the tests of an hypothesis consist of reviewing the available evidence. Both are examples of applying the scientific method.
Right, so I wasn't being so much 'absurd' as using words which you think create a misleading image!
Except that it is.
As I've explained twice now, science isn't based strictly one experiments, repeatable or otherwise. Hence to define science as only that which is based on repeatable experiments is absurd.
Which then leads to an examination of what evidence there is. As there is no evidence for the existence of people wandering around the desert for 40 years, it may be assumed that it didn't happen. This is where assumption and deduction come in.
I don't want to wander into the pits of discussing the reality of Jesus, there's a thread for that, so I won't talk about it.
We do know that the Romans ruled over Palestine. We have the Roman records, and their records demonstrate absolute obsessiveness with keeping records. This is science,the records are still in existence. What there is no record for is for the trial of Jesus and his crucifixion.
MS2 wrote:
I've read the above. You're an intelligent guy, so I'm very sure you knew I was using the 'shout me down' phrase metaphorically.
MS2 wrote: Yet you chose to refute it on the basis it was meant it literally.
MS2 wrote: That tells me my judgement is right and you are simply out to win debating points.
MS2 wrote: If I then try to 'address your points' as you request, I have to waste time defending my position to the nth degree in case I get accused of absurdities, and in turn ripping your position to shreds, etc etc. No thanks.
MS2 wrote:Dont worry though, I see someone else has come along who you need to put right on the absurd notion that history might not be science.
igorfrankensteen wrote:Agrippa:
I appreciate what your post tried to do, but you said some things which are on the wrong side of things, I think.
Which then leads to an examination of what evidence there is. As there is no evidence for the existence of people wandering around the desert for 40 years, it may be assumed that it didn't happen. This is where assumption and deduction come in.
Error. Assuming something didn't happen because you've found no support for it yet, isn't scientific, and doesn't demonstrate good Historical research practice either. The correct way to handle such things, is to say simply that there is no evidence to support such and such a Biblical claim. "Assuming" is NOT a recommended, or respected act by any disciplined Historian.
igorfrankensteen wrote:I don't want to wander into the pits of discussing the reality of Jesus, there's a thread for that, so I won't talk about it.
We do know that the Romans ruled over Palestine. We have the Roman records, and their records demonstrate absolute obsessiveness with keeping records. This is science,the records are still in existence. What there is no record for is for the trial of Jesus and his crucifixion.
Another common error for non-Historians.
igorfrankensteen wrote: First, though it is true that the Romans did keep a lot of records, they did not keep 100% complete records. To assume that all records were complete, and to assume as well that after the fall of the Empire, that it's conquerors carefully preserved all of those records, is silly, as soon as one actually looks at it.
igorfrankensteen wrote: DEDUCTIONS are a part of writing good History, not ASSUMPTIONS. And even deductions need to be identified as such.
Peer review is an interesting subject area. It does take place to a degree, but as we've begun to notice recently in the Hard Sciences world, we can't deduce from the fact that there is SOME peer review going on, that therefore the discipline can be trusted implicitly.
igorfrankensteen wrote: Since History is NOT something which can be "replicated experimentally" for the most part (yes, one can verify evidence some of the time, other times not), there is a limit to what even rigorous peer review could accomplish.
igorfrankensteen wrote: In fact, there is an entire aspect of History which is one of the absolutely MOST fascinating ones for me: it is called "Historiography." it is the study of how the telling of History itself, is affected by everything from present day (of the particular Historian under scrutiny) politics, to fads in the telling of History itself. Even though the past )( so far as can be determined) cannot be changed, what we THINK happened in the past, changes all the time. Sometimes owing to honest reappraisals, but even more commonly to serve the newest authorities, or would-be authorities.
This is why, to really "do" History well, one must do much more than read old documents and records. One must study the general nature of the people who created the documents, and what may have influenced them to do so.
igorfrankensteen wrote: It is very possible, for example, that the reason why the Crucifixion of Jesus resulted in no record being kept by the Romans, is that the people who killed him didn't see him as important enough to warrant a record.
igorfrankensteen wrote: I don't want to get into Jesus directly either, but you did bring it up after saying you didn't want to. We're both silly self-victimizers in that way, I guess.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest