11-07-2007, 08:53 AM
Is History not a science because it's classified amongst the Arts? Why, that's purely semantics, based on university bureaucratic motives. Other universities classify it amongst the Humanities, does that make other scientific studies Inhuman? Of course not. Whether a study is a science is not defined but what university section it is in. :wink:
I think that you mix up a few things.
First of, your description fits not only history, but also linguistics, law, astronomy, archaeology, but also mathematics and fhysics, to name but a few.
There is expriments and reproducable experiments. A chemist can put 26 fluids in a bottle and predict what will happen.That is partly based on theory and partly on experiments.
A physicist can't. An astronomer / astrophysicist can only theorise about a black hole turning around a star, but since they have not actually been there, they can't prove a thing.
So is astronomy not a science? According to your description Goffredo, it isn't. Or archaeology. Or linguistics. Or law. Or.. well, I made my point. :wink:
My problem here is that a) people judge sciences without realising what they entail, and the conclusion.
Indeed!
What most people here who want to strike History from the ranks of science fail to realise, is that the study of history is NOT primarily about presenting a theory about the past. History, AS A SCIENCE (I insist on that) is about the study of the sources available to us. And that is not done through interpretation (as many here keep saying) but through a methodology that has been scientifically developed over centuries. These include chronology, demography, historiography, genealogy, paleography, or cliometrics, to name a few. Historians not only simply rely on these, the development of these fields is an integral part of History as a science.
Some part of the field of History actually apply experiments, btw, such as social history. Not my cup of tea, but I thought I'd mention it.
Summing up, the view of the Science of History as 'some people writing a subjective view of what they thought happened in the past' is not only hopelessly limited, it's also unjust.
I usually compare this to a description of Michael Schumacher as 'a man who gets into a car and drives in a circle while applying the breaks at times.'
Quote: Modern science moves on two legs, experiment and theory. Niether leg is more important than the other.
[..]
History is not scientific because there is no experimentation. The best a historical theory can do is to say that if one looks at certain facts in a new way then new meaning can be given to them and to other facts previoulsy unexplained. Maybe one might predict that certain types of evidence might turn up if one looks in new places. This is wonderful and exciting!
[..]
But there is no way to do experiments in the true sense of the word, that is the creation of an artificial situation to see how things evolves. There is no way to be precise enough to make predictions of how events of the future can evolve and certainly no way to run the movie backwards to see how things would have gone in the past had certain things be different.
I think that you mix up a few things.
First of, your description fits not only history, but also linguistics, law, astronomy, archaeology, but also mathematics and fhysics, to name but a few.
There is expriments and reproducable experiments. A chemist can put 26 fluids in a bottle and predict what will happen.That is partly based on theory and partly on experiments.
A physicist can't. An astronomer / astrophysicist can only theorise about a black hole turning around a star, but since they have not actually been there, they can't prove a thing.
So is astronomy not a science? According to your description Goffredo, it isn't. Or archaeology. Or linguistics. Or law. Or.. well, I made my point. :wink:
Quote:Well Science is something else.So, tell me then, what is it? Mumbo-jumbo? Magic? Fancy footwork?
My problem here is that a) people judge sciences without realising what they entail, and the conclusion.
Quote:I agree, if you change "science" to "natural science".
See, here we differ simply between "Geisteswissenschaften" and "Naturwissenschaften" and "Rechtswissenschaften" and "Wirtschaftswissenschaften". History and most of it´s derivates are among the "Geisteswissenschaften". So I am used to simply accept that there are different approaches to "science", and that not the "Naturwissenschaften" can claim to be the only science existing. Look at "economical sciences". Experiments? No way.
Indeed!
What most people here who want to strike History from the ranks of science fail to realise, is that the study of history is NOT primarily about presenting a theory about the past. History, AS A SCIENCE (I insist on that) is about the study of the sources available to us. And that is not done through interpretation (as many here keep saying) but through a methodology that has been scientifically developed over centuries. These include chronology, demography, historiography, genealogy, paleography, or cliometrics, to name a few. Historians not only simply rely on these, the development of these fields is an integral part of History as a science.
Some part of the field of History actually apply experiments, btw, such as social history. Not my cup of tea, but I thought I'd mention it.
Summing up, the view of the Science of History as 'some people writing a subjective view of what they thought happened in the past' is not only hopelessly limited, it's also unjust.
I usually compare this to a description of Michael Schumacher as 'a man who gets into a car and drives in a circle while applying the breaks at times.'
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
