10 ms·

That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased

That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased as a counterfactual claim. e.g. "Slavery caused the U.S. Civil War" -> "If there had been no slavery, there would have been no U.S. Civil War." To give up counterfactuals is to surrender causality and to truly make the past "one damn thing after another," i.e. chronicle rather than history. The historical profession as we know it is all about making arguments, not merely cataloging events, so it would cease to exist without counterfactuals.

throw4847285 3y ago
But there are arguments and there are arguments. I read a great book about the Reformation that was a comprehensive history but whose final chapter makes a very compelling case for the Enlightenment being a direct result of the Reformation. He even makes the stronger argument that the Enlightenment unconsciously carried on several of the preoccupations of the Protestant Reformers into a secular context. And that America being a nation founded by Protestants has shaped the entire world. This chapter is preceded, though, by 800 pages of detailed history. You have to earn your big conclusions. And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence.
- allturtles 3y ago
  > And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic historians have a bit of a double standard here. Did Foucault muster up mounds of evidence for his totalizing theories of power and social structure? Not really, he gestured at a few facts and then built an elaborate structure of theory on that very wobbly foundation. Yet he continues to be taken seriously in academia, whereas Diamond never has been. I think that's partly because he was a "serious thinker" and Diamond is an "airport read," and also partly because theories like Focuault's are so flexible that it becomes a fun hammer you can apply to any nail ("social media is a panopticon!"), whereas Diamond's argument is specific to a particular historical arc, and partly because Foucault accords with the prejudices of the academy (there are hidden structures of power woven throughout society that oppress the weak) and Diamond doesn't (X determinism is bad, everything is "contingent.").
  - throw4847285 3y ago
    I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws. Fundamentally, what he is doing is not history. He has no interest in engaging with other academics, or in systematically analyzing all of the data. He starts with his conclusion and then cherry picks the facts, and it's popular because it appeals to people's preconceived notions. It's "lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire" level thinking. Plenty of academics hate Foucault. Ask an analytic philosopher what they think of him. And yet, those people still get to be part of the academy. Are some people shut out unfairly? Sure. Are many people shut out fairly because they aren't interested in rigor, they are only interested in exposure? Well, ok, academia has a lot of those. But at least it doesn't have Jared Diamond.

throw4847285 3y ago

But there are arguments and there are arguments. I read a great book about the Reformation that was a comprehensive history but whose final chapter makes a very compelling case for the Enlightenment being a direct result of the Reformation. He even makes the stronger argument that the Enlightenment unconsciously carried on several of the preoccupations of the Protestant Reformers into a secular context. And that America being a nation founded by Protestants has shaped the entire world. This chapter is preceded, though, by 800 pages of detailed history. You have to earn your big conclusions. And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence.

allturtles 3y ago
> And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic historians have a bit of a double standard here. Did Foucault muster up mounds of evidence for his totalizing theories of power and social structure? Not really, he gestured at a few facts and then built an elaborate structure of theory on that very wobbly foundation. Yet he continues to be taken seriously in academia, whereas Diamond never has been. I think that's partly because he was a "serious thinker" and Diamond is an "airport read," and also partly because theories like Focuault's are so flexible that it becomes a fun hammer you can apply to any nail ("social media is a panopticon!"), whereas Diamond's argument is specific to a particular historical arc, and partly because Foucault accords with the prejudices of the academy (there are hidden structures of power woven throughout society that oppress the weak) and Diamond doesn't (X determinism is bad, everything is "contingent.").
- throw4847285 3y ago
  I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws. Fundamentally, what he is doing is not history. He has no interest in engaging with other academics, or in systematically analyzing all of the data. He starts with his conclusion and then cherry picks the facts, and it's popular because it appeals to people's preconceived notions. It's "lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire" level thinking. Plenty of academics hate Foucault. Ask an analytic philosopher what they think of him. And yet, those people still get to be part of the academy. Are some people shut out unfairly? Sure. Are many people shut out fairly because they aren't interested in rigor, they are only interested in exposure? Well, ok, academia has a lot of those. But at least it doesn't have Jared Diamond.