11-05-2007, 11:05 PM
Dear Urselius and Robert: Here is a quite simple and understandable (and, in fact, usable) definition about what science is:
[url:3hzwdtmf]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science[/url]
Since this is quite congruent with what most parts of my world use as definition for the term "science", it seems to me to be quite clear that "History" is a term for a special sort of science.
Urselius, what you want to tell us, is IMO rather that you have difficulties with the scientific methods some historians use:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
Be assured, that there are all different kinds of methods, which can be very, very different:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography.
Some of them are so complicated, that they are even for historians very, very difficult to understand. Some of those older historians seem to have more difficulties in adapting to more recently developed methods. (Like "Inverted History", e.g.) They are just not as flexible as the younger historians are. Just like in physics. Errrm, I mean physical abilities. Although historians often tend to be very unathletic. A bit like philosophers. Or wizards. I get astray.
In fact, of course, I can hardly believe that you really meant what you were saying above. I rather think you want to check, if it is worth your time to be on this forum by testing out, if there are some people here which are worth your time and are up to a mental challange. I am quite sure Robert is, and many others are. As far as I am concerned, I am not. I simply just don´t have the time. (I have to prepare a rather unscientific lecture and to work on a rather unscientific PhD. And to hold unscientific seminars at the University. Arrgh. The only real scientific historian ever, Theodor Mommsen, would spin in his grave, would he know how unscientific we´ve got. (Mommsen was the only historian ever proven to be scientist, he got a "No-bel Price" (read like "la-ser beam" in Austin Powers)) Oooh. I get astray again.)
So, if you guys want to discuss, if "History" is in fact a science or if it is not, I think it would be great if a proper thread would be opened for exactly this topic.
I do not see that it really enlightens us about "Byzantine Weapons and Warfare". I say this as a moderator, of course. Nothing else. I swear by my house spider´s life. And I like my house spider. Really.
[url:3hzwdtmf]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science[/url]
Since this is quite congruent with what most parts of my world use as definition for the term "science", it seems to me to be quite clear that "History" is a term for a special sort of science.
Urselius, what you want to tell us, is IMO rather that you have difficulties with the scientific methods some historians use:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
Be assured, that there are all different kinds of methods, which can be very, very different:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography.
Some of them are so complicated, that they are even for historians very, very difficult to understand. Some of those older historians seem to have more difficulties in adapting to more recently developed methods. (Like "Inverted History", e.g.) They are just not as flexible as the younger historians are. Just like in physics. Errrm, I mean physical abilities. Although historians often tend to be very unathletic. A bit like philosophers. Or wizards. I get astray.
In fact, of course, I can hardly believe that you really meant what you were saying above. I rather think you want to check, if it is worth your time to be on this forum by testing out, if there are some people here which are worth your time and are up to a mental challange. I am quite sure Robert is, and many others are. As far as I am concerned, I am not. I simply just don´t have the time. (I have to prepare a rather unscientific lecture and to work on a rather unscientific PhD. And to hold unscientific seminars at the University. Arrgh. The only real scientific historian ever, Theodor Mommsen, would spin in his grave, would he know how unscientific we´ve got. (Mommsen was the only historian ever proven to be scientist, he got a "No-bel Price" (read like "la-ser beam" in Austin Powers)) Oooh. I get astray again.)
So, if you guys want to discuss, if "History" is in fact a science or if it is not, I think it would be great if a proper thread would be opened for exactly this topic.
I do not see that it really enlightens us about "Byzantine Weapons and Warfare". I say this as a moderator, of course. Nothing else. I swear by my house spider´s life. And I like my house spider. Really.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
