3 ms·
And physics is somewhat "understandable", as in given enough inputs (some measured physical stuff + some maths) one could say that from a certain point on he/sh
by paganel 7y ago
And physics is somewhat "understandable", as in given enough inputs (some measured physical stuff + some maths) one could say that from a certain point on he/she "understands" physics, but what should we do when it comes to social sciences?
Take history for example, we don't actually know the exact reason for why Hitler came to power. Was it the fault of the Weimar democracy? Was it the fault of the Nazis themselves only? A combination of the two? Some other third factor? And, most importantly, can that happen again? We actually do not know, and we're talking about one of the most important events of the 20th century, an event that directly caused the death through extermination of millions of people. And if you extend that line of reasoning to other similar events you'd discover that we are in the dark there, too (afaik we still have no direct proof for what caused by Great Depression, we're not even sure why the Great Depression "stopped" or when exactly it "stopped").
Which is to say that we're navigating in the dark most of the time when it comes to education, saying that we "understand" some stuff is only the exception, not the rule.
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoGreat commentary. The idea that insights on history, society, future and humanity can be obtained by studying existing history and extrapolating it, is called historicism. Unfortunately, we don't actually know whether it works or it's a completely misguided school(s) of thought. It's simply impossible to do any controlled experiment on the history and society. From time to time, I'll imagine how many of our serious social problems can be completely solved if it's possible to simulate the past and future accurately using a sandbox, allowing hypothesis and policies to be tested. And it's not a new idea in SciFi, for example, Isaac Asimov's Psychohistory is one.