Posted: May 08, 2015 2:06 am
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.
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.