Re: Для Вала

Автор сообщения: Равиль
Дата и время сообщения: 25 July 2008 at 21:43:29:

В ответ на сообщение: Для Вала


I finished Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel yesterday and found his comments in the epilogue about history and historians rather amusing, albeit true. He noted (I'm paraphrasing here) that history can't really be considered a science, and never has, because there is no definable system by which history can conform to.


In this recent post, I agreed with Jared Diamond that history is not a science for the reasons he gave, but there's another reason we may consider history as not being a science. Unlike science, history is subject to the interpretive tongue of creative human beings. Because history can be manipulated in this fashion—as the victors write the history books—it should be considered more of an art form. History can be poetic, even over-exaggerated, like art, relying solely upon the pen of whoever is recording it—a typically un-objective pen. Of course, whoever records history is influenced in the same way by whatever political movement is most dominant surrounding the writer's environment—politics is a prime factor in the interpretation of history; one that cannot be easily dismissed by the most objective historian.
Would any American historian pen a history book in a manner that makes the British Empire look more favorable than the United States? Probably not (but that's an old example, how about this...). Would any American historian pen a history book in a manner that makes the Islamic terrorists look like the war heroes that they are revered as throughout the Middle East, chanting on about the destruction of Western values? Not on this side of the world, no sir. Yet, that's a bit extreme and obvious.
The interpretation of history is political, cultural, and regional; one trip to the American South will prove that. People want to find in history something to instill a sense of greatness; to feel proud about their heritage—they want heroes, but to what extreme? Surely George Washington did not have such a lean and muscular physique, but it was more Platonically sound to present America's greatest general and first President so divine (in a Greek sense). It is a pleasant fantasy, but it is still a fantasy. Nietzsche was aware of this flaw in history; the gregariousness and propensity of historians to diffuse objectivity for subjective context.

I am a scientist, and I agree that history is not a science. It may have a methodology, but the methodology is not the scientific method. Even though historical analysis can use statistics, this does not mean it is a science. Many fields use mathematics without being fields of science. In general, the term "science" has come to be used too broadly. For some reason, people seem to use the word "science" in an attempt to take a position of authority or validity. One big key to a scientific theory, analysis, or hypothesis is that it must be "falsifiable." I don't think historical theories, analyses, or hypotheses meet this criterion, considerig that we cannot go back in time to watch an event and disprove a given historical theory, analysis, or hypothesis. For more information, read the article on "science." Leeirons (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


2824. Может ли история стать настоящей наукой? - Jetset 14:32 14.07.08 (414)
К списку тем на странице