Posted: May 08, 2015 5:10 pm
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.
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.
History repeats experiments by providing citations for the textual and archeological evidence, which can be verified by anyone.
At the same time, new evidence might turn up that challenges current theories, leading to revision, like in any other scientific field.
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.
No, that makes it a science, albeit a non-exact soft one.
MS2 wrote:What's your view on my piece of pottery example, by the way? Do you agree that it requires subjective interpretation?
No more than in paleontology.
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?
No and I've tried to point this out before in the thread that shall not be named.
Neither science in general, nor history specifically is based on an appel to consensus.
You know why? Because that's an appeal to popularity fallacy.
Like I said before, a good historian specifies which of his claims are inferences and which are based on soudn evidence.
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.)
The way you are asking questions seem to imply that history is some sort of philosophy where people just study their navels and pick whatever interpetation they fancy.
It's not at all like that.