Science, History and Revisionism... Oh my!

[frankq]

Social sciences still fall under the scientific method. As for defining that term, I thought we all learned it back in third grade science class.

 

In short, observation, hypothesis, experiment, verify, predict.

 

 

''Social sciences still fall under the scientific method.'' This tells me nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is an evasive blanket statement.

 

As far as observation, hypothesis, experimentation, verification and---prediction (that's stretching it) are concerned related to work in history, they do not draw from the same set of laws as are applied to the natural sciences. Even our precious logic falls within the realm of philosophy and philosophy falls within the social sciences. The initial argument here is the word scientific as applied to history is misleading, and the reason I don't approve of the term. In the conservative academic world the word scientific in its purist sense is applied to the natural sciences.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

You thoroughly confuse me. Social sciences is science still, what is it you're objecting to? All you keep complaining about is how it's not scientific, and yet you haven't even bothered explaining why.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Perhaps a moderator can split topics? And frankq, I have no problem with making the distinction between physical sciences and social sciences, but they both fall under the realm of "science". And no, using "science" when connected to archaeology is not, in fact, laughed at by the greats of it. Joe Zias, a very respected archaeologist/anthropologist, recently commented on Larry Stager's statement of concern regarding unprovenanced antiquities. (You can read about the statement at my blog here.)

 

Here's what he had to say (from ANE-2):

 

The looters simply left them behind as they have no resale value. One of the five crania recovered from this cave presented evidence as being perhaps the earliest trephinated skull which one can say was done clearly for medical reasons. Even when colleagues attempt to salvage what has been left behind by the robbers, the skeletal material is out of context and scientifically has lost a tremendous amt. of its scientific value.

Huh, would you believe it? A highly respected anthropologist described his work as scientific, and no one laughed him off the scrictly academic list?

 

I don't mean to be mean spirited about this frankq, but seriously, it is very insulting to archaeologist and historian alike when someone claims that "it's not really science". Perhaps you should spend less time on UNRV and more time in the field with the experts before formulating these opinions on these fields.

 

Sincerely,

 

Chris Weimer

 

PS - If the moderators refuse to do a split, then we can start a new thread on it. As I see it, this topic has run its course on this thread, and we really ought to be getting back to dealing with Rameses the Great's odd ideas about Spartacus instead.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Q Valerius Scerio

[frankq]

The problem is you are not drawing a more conservative and necessary line between the natural sciences and the social sciences. And I cite again my examples if you were approaching this matter in both the academic and publishing fields. Your interpretation of the word science and scientific would be taken to task.

 

 

Let's take this if need be to another thread.

[Primus Pilus]

Moved, though the nature of the discussion seems quite semantic in nature. Interesting nonetheless.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

What line needs to be drawn? I think we all know the differences between physical sciences and social sciences, but that doesn't make either one "more scientific" than the other. In both cases, interpretation ultimately lies with the scientist.

 

And as for your hypothetical publishing company, have you any evidence of this at all, or is this your gut intuition? I have already shown you a highly respected anthropologist using scientific to describe archaeology - what more do you want? Where's your evidence now, eh?

[frankq]

What line needs to be drawn? I think we all know the differences between physical sciences and social sciences, but that doesn't make either one "more scientific" than the other. In both cases, interpretation ultimately lies with the scientist.

 

And as for your hypothetical publishing company, have you any evidence of this at all, or is this your gut intuition? I have already shown you a highly respected anthropologist using scientific to describe archaeology - what more do you want? Where's your evidence now, eh?

 

I agree with Primus, this has become totally semantic in nature.

 

The publishing company isn't hypothetical, I worked as an editor in one. I know the conservative rules of engagement RE the word ''science''.

 

In reference to archeology, only in recent years has this field started to benefit from scientific techniques. Before that time it was quite often a hit or miss operation, indeed, a field of study pertaining to social behavior. It still is, in large part.

 

The issue here, again, is a definition of the term ''scientific'', which, as defined by Webster's, is ''regulated and conforming to the principles of exact science''. More conservatively put, it is ''a systematic knowledge of the physical and material world''. History, anthropology, and archeology cannot be mathematically systematized in this manner.

 

All this has started regarding the term revisionism, and your bold insistence that Rameses was committing revisionism. He wasn't. He was just being youthfully deluded. Revisionism is a legit term but I agreed early that it has a nasty ring to it. Better the term ''revised''. When a text book is updated, you get a ''revised edition''.

[M. Porcius Cato]

To add my two cents, I think there is both a very important role for the sciences in the study of the past and that history is not (and cannot be) a science itself.

 

In my view, history is rather akin to forensics--one has to reconstruct an event or series of events from fragmentary evidence and testimony. In the same way that more basic sciences (physics, biology, psychology) help the forsensic investigator rule out possible reconstructions via application of basic principles to special problems in (say) ballistics, medicine, or memory, the special sciences also help the historian rule out alternative hypotheses.

 

This is very clear in military history, where competing accounts of battles are subject to reconstruction and test. It is (at least in principle) also applicable to other problems in history. For example, scientific examination of the presence of genetic markers across diffierent modern populations have shed light on the origins of the Etruscans; modern demographic models have led to a re-examination of the causes of poverty in the run-up to the Gracchan crisis; etc.

 

No, of course, history cannot itself be a science for a very simple reason--true replication is impossible. Just as it's impossible to diagnose what's wrong with your computer when you can't get it to misbehave again, so too natural phenomena must be repeatable to allow for the systematic manipulation of putative causal factors in the course of hypothesis-testing. Even astronomy, a science where experimentation is impossible, at least allows for repeated testing of repeatable phenomena. Without the bedrock of replication, history simply cannot attain the certainty of science.

[caldrail]

Agreed. I see history as a jigsaw puzzle where you can't see the picture on the box. Not all the pieces are there, but you can still see a picture if you carefully fit together what you have. But that means all of it. Study of one field is difficult without considering others. Everything should be in context, or understanding is lost.