4 ms·

Is history generally considered a science? It would be weird to me for someone to use the scientific method to show that even Abraham Lincoln existed. That's n

Is history generally considered a science? It would be weird to me for someone to use the scientific method to show that even Abraham Lincoln existed. That's not to say that history isn't a form of knowledge. There's more to knowledge than science.

jschwartzi 10y ago
That's because there's a wealth of documentary evidence showing the Lincoln existed within the past 200 years. Imagine if you were 10,000 years in the future. The United States has ceased to exist, and many of our monuments are buried in mud and rubble. The paper artifacts have mostly rotted away, or they lie buried in some preserving medium. No first-hand accounts remain from the period. One day, a team uncovers a partial statue of a seated man with a great beard. Was he a god, or an emperor of the land? How could they prove either stance without applying scientific techniques, gathering evidence from the remains of the surrounding buildings and analyzing it? Archeology may not be a hard science, but it is an empirical science.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I love archaeology. I love evolutionary science. I love anthropology. I'm not replying to you directly here. I have a concern about this thread. I felt this was the best place to put it. Your use of the word "empirical" here may be accurate yet misleading. Some sciences work with hard data, falsifiable hypothesis, repoducibility, and so forth. In these we can construct mathematical models which eventually we trust explicitly. (Note that in most cases these are not explanatory models, simply sufficient ones.) Some sciences work with simple observation and correlation, with lots of imaginative community input in place to suppose causation. We can use mathematical models here as well, but there's a huge degree of noise here. I have no problem with a forum participant coming up with their own speculation. If folks don't like it they can ignore it. Perhaps one day evidence turns up which validates that speculation. We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract. The more imaginative narratives you can create from existing data, the more the scientific community at large will expand what they consider to be the world of alternatives to consider. What I'm seeing a lot of lately is taking anything with the label "science" on it and telling laymen that they have no business bullshitting in this area. This is not in the best interest of either science or the academy. ADD: I've seen the flip side of this as well, where really good scientists come up with the most wondrous and dramatic narratives about things where the evidence is thin. That's cool, but many of these folks will use the term "science" as a way of pumping up their speculative fiction. Stringing together a series of what most experts believe is likely while adding your own color commentary is not science. It's entertaining as hell and I love reading it. But it ain't science.
  - splawn 10y ago
    "We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract." Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? "What I'm seeing a lot of lately is taking anything with the label "science" on it and telling laymen that they have no business bullshitting in this area." What if they don't even realize that they are bullshitting in the first place? The other day I was debating AGW (as I do) and my opponent, in response to my constant citing of work and my constant demand that he do the same, actually asked me why I didn't have any "facts from my head". I do see your point, but when I see people unable to tell the difference between empirical data and an opinion, I think it might give "magical thinkers" or the "anti-science crowd" or whatever label they should have too much credit.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      That topic is especially tough because of the highly-politicized nature of the topic. Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? No, I do not. Although I completely understand and agree with you that it creates a very bad environment for reasoned discussion. We've reached the point where anybody with any opinion at all can google around a bit and come up with pieces of data and nit-picks which lets them construct their own narrative -- regardless of whether it holds water or is self-consistent or not. There are a lot of "Google geniuses" out there, sadly. AGW is not just one debate, but several. That's because it's not an argument around a closed system where one variable changes and we see clear causation. It's a series of arguments about many changes, the results of those changes, and the economic/future impact of those results over several decades. Dude. That's a ton of stuff to try to pin down no matter who is in the debate. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of complex systems involved. It's far too easy to pick and choose which of these you'd like to argue. It's probably the most complex (and whacked) public debate we have. I don't see physicists and the general public arguing about WIMPs, but everybody feels that they can take part equally in this discussion because some part of it may touch on their experiences, expertise, or political opinion. The only good news I have is that there are only a few topics like that.
jhbadger 10y ago
History is a science in the broad sense as it uses verifiable data about the historical record to make conclusions about what occurred. In that regard it isn't much different from other sciences that study the non-historical past, such as paleontology or physical anthropology. That being said, not every piece of data or conclusion drawn in history is equally valid. Much like with natural sciences, you have to consider the very real possibility that when one person or group of people come up with a radical new conclusion that they are mistaken. It's always safer to stick with consensus views unless you know a particular subject well and can judge the merits yourself. If a new idea really is valid, eventually it will become part of the consensus.

jschwartzi 10y ago

That's because there's a wealth of documentary evidence showing the Lincoln existed within the past 200 years. Imagine if you were 10,000 years in the future. The United States has ceased to exist, and many of our monuments are buried in mud and rubble. The paper artifacts have mostly rotted away, or they lie buried in some preserving medium. No first-hand accounts remain from the period. One day, a team uncovers a partial statue of a seated man with a great beard. Was he a god, or an emperor of the land? How could they prove either stance without applying scientific techniques, gathering evidence from the remains of the surrounding buildings and analyzing it? Archeology may not be a hard science, but it is an empirical science.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I love archaeology. I love evolutionary science. I love anthropology. I'm not replying to you directly here. I have a concern about this thread. I felt this was the best place to put it. Your use of the word "empirical" here may be accurate yet misleading. Some sciences work with hard data, falsifiable hypothesis, repoducibility, and so forth. In these we can construct mathematical models which eventually we trust explicitly. (Note that in most cases these are not explanatory models, simply sufficient ones.) Some sciences work with simple observation and correlation, with lots of imaginative community input in place to suppose causation. We can use mathematical models here as well, but there's a huge degree of noise here. I have no problem with a forum participant coming up with their own speculation. If folks don't like it they can ignore it. Perhaps one day evidence turns up which validates that speculation. We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract. The more imaginative narratives you can create from existing data, the more the scientific community at large will expand what they consider to be the world of alternatives to consider. What I'm seeing a lot of lately is taking anything with the label "science" on it and telling laymen that they have no business bullshitting in this area. This is not in the best interest of either science or the academy. ADD: I've seen the flip side of this as well, where really good scientists come up with the most wondrous and dramatic narratives about things where the evidence is thin. That's cool, but many of these folks will use the term "science" as a way of pumping up their speculative fiction. Stringing together a series of what most experts believe is likely while adding your own color commentary is not science. It's entertaining as hell and I love reading it. But it ain't science.
- splawn 10y ago
  "We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract." Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? "What I'm seeing a lot of lately is taking anything with the label "science" on it and telling laymen that they have no business bullshitting in this area." What if they don't even realize that they are bullshitting in the first place? The other day I was debating AGW (as I do) and my opponent, in response to my constant citing of work and my constant demand that he do the same, actually asked me why I didn't have any "facts from my head". I do see your point, but when I see people unable to tell the difference between empirical data and an opinion, I think it might give "magical thinkers" or the "anti-science crowd" or whatever label they should have too much credit.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    That topic is especially tough because of the highly-politicized nature of the topic. Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? No, I do not. Although I completely understand and agree with you that it creates a very bad environment for reasoned discussion. We've reached the point where anybody with any opinion at all can google around a bit and come up with pieces of data and nit-picks which lets them construct their own narrative -- regardless of whether it holds water or is self-consistent or not. There are a lot of "Google geniuses" out there, sadly. AGW is not just one debate, but several. That's because it's not an argument around a closed system where one variable changes and we see clear causation. It's a series of arguments about many changes, the results of those changes, and the economic/future impact of those results over several decades. Dude. That's a ton of stuff to try to pin down no matter who is in the debate. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of complex systems involved. It's far too easy to pick and choose which of these you'd like to argue. It's probably the most complex (and whacked) public debate we have. I don't see physicists and the general public arguing about WIMPs, but everybody feels that they can take part equally in this discussion because some part of it may touch on their experiences, expertise, or political opinion. The only good news I have is that there are only a few topics like that.

jhbadger 10y ago

History is a science in the broad sense as it uses verifiable data about the historical record to make conclusions about what occurred. In that regard it isn't much different from other sciences that study the non-historical past, such as paleontology or physical anthropology. That being said, not every piece of data or conclusion drawn in history is equally valid. Much like with natural sciences, you have to consider the very real possibility that when one person or group of people come up with a radical new conclusion that they are mistaken. It's always safer to stick with consensus views unless you know a particular subject well and can judge the merits yourself. If a new idea really is valid, eventually it will become part of the consensus.