Science, History and Revisionism... Oh my!

[Q Valerius Scerio]

If someone can come up with a better word, let me know.

Scientific Inquiry?

[frankq]

If someone can come up with a better word, let me know.

Scientific Inquiry?

 

Uh, naaa. Too complicated. Revisionism is still the best term but it's not a good term. In fact it has a bizarre ring to it. Scientific inquiry is too stuffy.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Stuffy? Best term? Scientific inquiry is what, I hope, you are doing. Why use a label that has always had a quite negative connotation to it? Revisionism gives the idea that you have an agenda and you wish to change history to suit that. Revisionism is what Rameses the Great is doing - envisioning Rome as some Evil Empire and Spartacus as the voracious hero who steps up despite all odds to strike it down. Revisionism is when religious neo-fascist theocrats decide that the country was founded on the Bible. I shudder at revisionism.

[Germanicus]

I like robust scientific enquiry .

[frankq]

I like robust scientific enquiry .

 

 

 

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian.

 

I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history.

Edited April 23, 2006 by frankq

[frankq]

I like robust scientific enquiry .

 

 

 

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian.

 

I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history.

 

Oh, see my original original above post. I changed the wording.

[caldrail]

Stuffy? Best term? Scientific inquiry is what, I hope, you are doing. Why use a label that has always had a quite negative connotation to it? Revisionism gives the idea that you have an agenda and you wish to change history to suit that. Revisionism is what Rameses the Great is doing - envisioning Rome as some Evil Empire and Spartacus as the voracious hero who steps up despite all odds to strike it down. Revisionism is when religious neo-fascist theocrats decide that the country was founded on the Bible. I shudder at revisionism.

 

Not revisionism - romanticism. Exactly what I suffered from before I got more serious about roman history. I'd watched Derek Jacobi, Peter Ustinov, Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas etc and swallowed all that nonsense

 

In one way it was a good thing - it got me into roman history. Funny thing is though, as I strip away the myth and legend I discover things that might seem a little more mundane to some but are just as fascinating. For me, the romans are becoming real people, not square jawed shakespearean actors. I love it.

[Germanicus]

I love it.

 

Know where your comming from Caldrail !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian.

 

I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history.

How is scientific misleading? Archaeology and philology are both sciences. Following the scientific method is the only requisite of science, and both do that exactly. Next thing you know you hear that "evolution" isn't science.

[caldrail]

Science is the application of logic, art is the application of intuition. The study of history, be it archaeological or theory, requires both to arrive at a solid conclusion.

 

A couple of nights ago I saw Timewatch on TV, discussing the find of thirty roman skeletons in York. Some had iron rings around the ankle, some were buried face down, all were decapitated and some heads swopped. Huh?

 

After much speculation and research, the people investigating came to the conclusion that these weren't slaves, criminals, prisoners-of-war, or roman casualties. They were members of the roman administration, executed on the orders of Caracalla for getting in his way before he came to power.

 

Now that I hadn't expected.

[frankq]

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian.

 

I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history.

How is scientific misleading? Archaeology and philology are both sciences. Following the scientific method is the only requisite of science, and both do that exactly. Next thing you know you hear that "evolution" isn't science.

 

 

Archeology and philology may follow certain procedures to exact findings, but I find deeming them ''scientific methods'' an overstatement; they are not categorized as sciences, nor do they follow exact rules as one might find in the physical sciences. Go to any university and see what departments archeology and philology fall into. Moreover, write a history book, take it to a publisher, and use the term scientific. Boy, will they take you to task.

Edited April 23, 2006 by frankq

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Archaeology falls under anthropology and philology under linguistics, both of which employ scientific methods. How are they not using the scientific method?

[frankq]

Archaeology falls under anthropology and philology under linguistics, both of which employ scientific methods. How are they not using the scientific method?

 

''The scientific method?'' Just what exactly is ''the scientific method''? Archeology and philology fall under the social sciences. The social sciences are not the physical sciences, they are in greater part mental sciences, and the exacting and mathematical laws of the physical sciences don't apply here. Yes, there can be carbon dating within archeological research, but many if not most of the procedures require a great demand on right brain thinking. Certainly this is the case with philology. Language isn't a set thing. It's constantly evolving.

 

Of course, everything is evolving in all fields but I return to my point. If you went to a publisher with a historical piece and you told the editors it is based on scientific deduction, they would sit back and demand what field of the physical sciences you were referring to, math? Chemistry? If they were to promote the book, trust me, they'd make you throw the word ''scientific'' out. In this instance, scientific is more misleading that the word revisionism.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Archeology and philology fall under the social sciences. The social sciences are not the physical sciences, they are in greater part mental sciences, and the exacting and mathematical laws of the physical sciences don't apply here.

Huh. I thought you said they weren't sciences. Why are you moving the goalposts now? I never claimed they were physical sciences, merely sciences. Now you've proven my point for me. Thank you.

[frankq]

Archeology and philology fall under the social sciences. The social sciences are not the physical sciences, they are in greater part mental sciences, and the exacting and mathematical laws of the physical sciences don't apply here.

Huh. I thought you said they weren't sciences. Why are you moving the goalposts now? I never claimed they were physical sciences, merely sciences. Now you've proven my point for me. Thank you.

 

I didnt move the goal post at all. Social science is a term that's been in use for a long time. And you did not define the term ''the scientific method'' so how can your point be proved?