Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.


Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Don't Want To Join, Just Inquire: Physics & History

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 24

1


History isn't scientific. It's a Humaties. Science deals with logic and facts. History is about humanity. It's the story of people. People don't act on facts. So history can't be a science.

2

Agree, they are totally separate. History can study and report the advances of Science and Technology, but History can't be infused with it. Atleast that is how I see it. Then again I graduated from college 1995 so it may have changed since then.

3

"My question makes sense to me, does anyone else understand what I'm asking?"
To your first question, no.
"In so far as history claims to be scientific, or to speak in a historical tradition that claims scientific perspective..."
Most historians don't do this. Some marxists might, but not very many. You can have a nearly scientific approach to history, but it will never be a natural science because you cannot test a hypothesis.
"Is there a cunning of reason to history..."
Not trying to be rude at all, what does this mean at all? It reads like word salad.
"The fact that human beings haven't abandoned nuclear weapons for going on 70 years now suggests that they are here to stay, and what implications are there for 'history'..."
You are asking what are the implications for history and yet referring to the future. This doesn't make sense.
I have a question for you... did you get this off of the post-modern essay generator?

4

Why the arrogant attacks on my prose?  I didn't provoke you.  Whence your license?


5

But in order for them to be the same then each person would have to have the same outcome and view because of Scientific Laws of the Universe. History has to be separate due to the fact that I can look at certain events of History different than other people and have totally and radically different ideas and views.

6

This is a problem of formulation: academic categories, themselves, are historically constructed.
There is no reason, a priori, to leave rigidly separate and distinct two modes of inquiry.
Let's say there was contact with an alien race, surely that would put the "humanities" in a different historical and scientific perspective?

7

Um... I already mentioned that it's not a natural science :\

8

The development of atomic weapons, I suggest, places the "humanities" in a specific light, that raises questions about its claims to knowledge and perspective.

9

Alien contact would still equal an event, drastic yes but an event. And separately Science would benefit from the contact. Its still two separate entities.

10

But natural and physical sciences are an aspect of history, surely?

11

But how to tell the narratives of colonialism, if that alien contact, let's say, were uninvited?

12

It reads like word salad. Superfluous use of language is constant throughout your OP and quite a bit of it doesn't make sense. Criticism given with references to the material itself should be carefully considered. Also... in regards to my last statement... go to post-modern essay generator and read some of the material. You'll see why I wrote that.

13

Que? I don't have an opinion. I have expertize in the field. Sybil.
History is not a fictional narrative, which I read you as implying.
I didn't say it wasn't a narrative.  I pointed out that narrative as commonly understood means story. History is not just a story.
Thanks for pasting from an online dictionary. I'd rather refer to the language as used and understood by educated people.

14



Sybil was right. Narrative has more than one meaning, and in an educated and erudite context, the one she posted often carries more weight. She may have taken a slight jab at you, but the fact remains that you dismissed her completely legitimate comment due to your preconceived notions of what she meant. That's on you, not on Sybil.

15

Yes, and I'm afraid your entry into heaven will be delayed a week.
Sorry, I don't make these rules.

16

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

17

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

18

How about over educated people?

19

You are hung up on this fictional narrative idea. I'm a Historian with 2 degrees and I'm saying History is the story of Humankind, our story. Sorry that is so difficult for you to digest.
You're just here to pick a fight with somebody aren't you?

20

I'm not. I love you though.

21

Ooh, things are getting interesting.

22



At it's core,  the phrase "history claims to be scientific" is gibberish.  History doesn't claim anything, it merely is.
Historians,  sociologists, politicians, whatever Marx was, and others can study it and argue from it and perhaps even twist it to suit another purpose, but in each case the degree of scientific method applied to that endeavor varies and stands aside from what is being reviewed and described.
Can history be studied in a scientific way?  I would say that many times, yes.  Can hypotheses be formulated and can evidence be gathered and even experiments designed and performed to confirm or discard them?  Whenever possible, yes.
I dunno about Star Trek,  you lost me there.

23

"history claims to be scientific" is not gibberish.
And it's unfair of you to persist in labeling something incorrectly.
Grammatically, the sentence has a competent structure:  "history (subject) claims (verb) to be scienific (object).
That the phrase is stated with self-conscious ambiguity (I phrased the original statement two different ways -- a hard and a soft way -- to encompass different interpretations of the statement) should assure you of its sophistication, which should elude accusations of gibberish.
The admission of your ignorance, "you lost me there," is really intellectually stunted, if it's not followed by further discussion.  You could substitute Asimov, if you want high-brow science fiction.
You show a real lack of Effort, historian person.

24

Regarding the statement, "History claims to be scientific."
Please see:
"That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession" by Peter Novick
https://www.amazon.com/That...
I just found a number of other history books, which I have not read, on Amazon that discuss the same things in today's historiography.

Posts: 24

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Don't Want To Join, Just Inquire: Physics & History

Similar topics in this forum