History and Science

[Robert Vermaat]

I come from a scientific rather than historical background and I suspect that, because of this, I am quite comfortable in proposing theories concerning the behaviour of people in the past which cannot be proven in any concrete manner.

:?: hock:
What are you suggesting? History isn't science? And you are 'therefore' comfortable to propose 'theories that can't be proven'? hock:

[Urselius]

I come from a scientific rather than historical background and I suspect that, because of this, I am quite comfortable in proposing theories concerning the behaviour of people in the past which cannot be proven in any concrete manner.

:?: hock:
What are you suggesting? History isn't science? And you are 'therefore' comfortable to propose 'theories that can't be proven'? hock:

I'm a scientist with an interest in history.

The criteria for acceptance of theories in the two disciplines I have found to be considerably different. In science the extrapolation from a piece of evidence to an interpretation at a certain remove is quite acceptable, providing the extrapolation is logical and consistent with the original evidence. The interpretation is, of course presented as such and is not treated as proven until evidence which directly supports it is found. Scientists are quite happy with theories.

Historians, on the other hand, have a tendency to dismiss theories comprehensively unless heavily supported by, preferably written, primary evidence. This seems to be true even when a theory is perfectly logical and consistent with whatever slight evidence exists. This is, of course, a subjective view, though I have written both scientific papers and historical (Napoleonic) articles. Historians seem to have a fundamental discomfort with theories and eschew logical extrapolation from limited data.

[Robert Vermaat]

Historians, on the other hand, have a tendency to dismiss theories comprehensively unless heavily supported by, preferably written, primary evidence.

Frankly, I don't think you know what History as a science is.
And frankly, speaking as a historian, I'm offended at being excluded from science. History bloody well IS a science. :evil:

Historians seem to have a fundamental discomfort with theories and eschew logical extrapolation from limited data.

You are confusing History with Pseudo-history.
Historians have no problems with theories because they realise that, since nobody of us was actually there, all we produce can be but theory. So historians have no problems with theories at all, since there can be nothing but.

This seems to be true even when a theory is perfectly logical and consistent with whatever slight evidence exists. This is, of course, a subjective view, though I have written both scientific papers and historical (Napoleonic) articles.

Pseudo-history, as I said above. Every self-respecting historian should stay away from such arguments about theories that are not supported by any proof, but are solely supported by so-called 'logic' ("It's possible, so it's true").
This is getting you arguments like "King Arthur existed because he could have existed, because there are people talking about him 400 years later, so it's true."
Or:
"The life of Jesus Christ in the Bible is based on a biography of Julius Caesar because it could have."

Nothing to do with history whatsoever.

[Magnus]

Historians seem to have a fundamental discomfort with theories and eschew logical extrapolation from limited data.

That's odd...most of the time ancient historians are able to do little else.

[caiusbeerquitius]

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.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Oh. I forgot my emoticons. Use a ) wink: here and there. And don´t forget the :roll: .

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, although it hurts my scientific nerves to have to rely on Wikipedia , I can agree with this excellent reply.

[Urselius]

I would agree that scientific method can be applied, to a certain extent, to historical research. However, the fact that History is always placed in Arts faculties in universities, and not lumped with Biochemistry or Particle Physics, tends to persuade me that it isn’t a science as such.

A recent argument I had with some linguists (on linguistic history) is an illustration of the different mind-set of ‘Arts practitioners’ from scientists. I proposed that classifying Modern English as a West Germanic language was ridiculous, given that over 80% of Anglo-Saxon vocabulary has disappeared and that about 70% of Modern English words were Latin derived, and Modern English grammar had little in common with the grammar of either Old English or ‘other’ modern Germanic languages. As a paradigm I said that if I called a big-cat hybrid that had 70% tiger genes and less than 30% lion genes a “lionâ€

[Tarbicus]

So long as the theory is always presented as a theory, I don't see the conflict. It's when theory is presented as fact that I personally have a problem, and am usually keen to point out it's nothing more than (Mike Bishop's phrase) a factoid, especially when it creates a long standing assumption that it was so, when it blatantly was not or cannot be proven using evidence.

Reading this thread, I have a sneaky suspicion both sides would possibly agree.

Not only do I read anything I can on the Roman army but I also subscribe to New Scientist and read other scientific periodicals, and I have to say I like the scientific approach. A lot of science seems to be about using 'gut feeling', where the individual can see it but can't prove it. The next step is to prove what they suspect to be the case. It seems to be a very instinctive process, but mainly based on the solid grounds of a process of repetitive testing and confirmation which I'm not sure can be recreated in the historical sphere, and maybe that's why it isn't classed as Science (with a capital S). There then appears to be no conflict among the scientific community who seem to relish when another scientist will try to debunk the theory, even if it's their own. I'm not sure that's the case amongst historians.

Why don't you guys choose an historical subject to discuss to see if there really is a difference between the Scientist's approach, and the Historian's, or at least to see if the net results and conclusions would be the same?

Bear in mind that I'm neither a scientist nor an historian, so all of the above is just theory.

[Urselius]

You are quite right about the 'gut feeling;' practical research in science is less "fact-driven" than many scientists would care to admit openly. In many cases new lines of study arise from feelings about what would be an elegant solution to a problem rather than on any initial factual indications. Imagination plays a central role in science.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I would agree that scientific method can be applied, to a certain extent, to historical research. However, the fact that History is always placed in Arts faculties in universities, and not lumped with Biochemistry or Particle Physics, tends to persuade me that it isn’t a science as such.

See, there is the big mistake. Ancient History is a (insert word you like meaning "science") which is drawing information from sources. In the equivalent of a "Ancient History 101" one learns that there is a large variety of sources a modern historian (hihi!) has to use to be able to come to sensible and new results. Among these are the results of so-called "secondary sciences". And in fact, these "secondary sciences" produce all kinds of "sources" for the historian to use. How nice. Among these are archaeological prospections, dendrochronology, biological and biomedical analyses, archaeological research results, philological research results, numismatical research results, papyrological research results and many, many more. It´s just too much typing now. (Oooh. I forgot the Epigraphics. Mommsen isn´t coming to a rest in his grave these days, oh no. )
As far as the Ancient Historians are concerned, it is also sensible to be familiar with the processes with which these results are gained, since everything needs to be checked for validity befor the historian can use it. so he/she really needs to be a multi-talented historian. But then, the methods used by Ancient Historians differ a lot from the methods of the Historians you may be familiar with from your Early Modern / Modern (Napoleonic) buddies.
So, in theory, a generalizing opinion about "Historians as such" only shows that someone who makes such a generalizing statement seems not to know a lot about the subject. For there are no "Historians as such", for each historical dicipline has it´s own methodology and historiography and history of historiography. Your statements may or may not be worth thinking about for a moment, if contemporary or modern historians are concerned. To bash those philosophic nerds like Foucault and the like. People saying stuff that many other people don´t understand are always very suspicious and should be watched. Ask me, I´m a German. For Ancient History, these statements about the validity of "History" as a science only show a vast gap of knowledge about the subject (science), IMO. But, in fact, I have no time for this discussion.
Please use the emoticons from above again.
And no offence to Modern Historians intended.

[Tarbicus]

As everyone's linking to Wikipedia :wink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Is this practiced by historians? I think you guys need to distinguish or at least define 'Science' as it means to you. I've been thinking of 'scientific method', rather than the general term 'science' per se.

[Urselius]

"See, there is the big mistake. Ancient History is a (insert word you like meaning "science") which is drawing information from sources. In the equivalent of a "Ancient History 101" one learns that there is a large variety of sources a modern historian (hihi!) has to use to be able to come to sensible and new results. Among these are the results of so-called "secondary sciences". And in fact, these "secondary sciences" produce all kinds of "sources" for the historian to use. How nice. Among these are archaeological prospections, dendrochronology, biological and biomedical analyses, archaeological research results...."

So historians of Ancient History are parasites living off the research of scientists! :wink:

I'm not really trying to deprecate History as a branch of knowledge, I'm an enthusiastic amateur historian after all, but merely to highlight some differences in the attitudes of historians and scientists to innovation. As was pointed out above scientists tend to welcome radical challenges to orthodox opinion, historians tend, I think, to give radical re-interpretations a generally hostile reception. There are exceptions in both spheres of the academic world, but I think as a generalisation my view has some validity.

[satsobek]

As everyone's linking to Wikipedia :wink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Is this practiced by historians? I think you guys need to distinguish or at least define 'Science' as it means to you. I've been thinking of 'scientific method', rather than the general term 'science' per se.

I must admit that like Tarbicus, I am also feeling confused by this discussion. I also would also not tend to classify history as a "science" in the same sense as biology, chemistry, geology, or such fields. This is NOT to say that a good historian does not form opinions based on solid research and credible sources, but I would also tend to place history somewhere else besides science. Science, unlike history for example, is not something I would see as subjective and open to interpretation. Historians certainly apply some scientific methodology in their work (such as creating a thesis and then doing research and trying to find facts to back it up), but unlike science, history has far more shades of gray. There are less definitely "right" or "wrong" answers, just some that are more right than others or have more supporting evidence.

Also, unlike science, the same historical facts can often be interpreted in different ways in order to reach very different conclusions. I suppose this does happen with science sometimes, but I suspect well-conducted scientific experiments are far less open to interpretation than what finds in the field of history (even if scientific results don't always give the expected or hoped-for results!).

Most importantly though, I would say science is about the synthesis of new information, whereas history is concerned with the interpretation and understanding of existing knowledge. History is always trying to fill in unanswered questions from the past.

I would certainly say that history can be approached in a "scientific" manner, but that it is generally too inexact to formally regiment as has been done with traditional science.

It may be true that some historians are inflexible and closed to new ideas, and unwilling to be "dynamic" and "creative" in their views, but then, this is not something which all scientists are innocent of either. There are established and popular views in about things in the scientific community too, and people who think out side these norms can also encounter strong resistance, even if their research eventually proves them correct.

Historians who seem reluctant to easily accept new ideas are doing their job-- a good historian is going to look for theories that not only seem logical, but are more importantly backed up by many solid, credible sources. This is not necessarily going to make a theory categorically "right", but all historians can really do in the end in play an odds game anyway -- odds are that if the majority of evidence supports an interpretation, it is far more likely to be right than wrong. We can't say for certain that Romans didn't sail to North America (I find this theory pretty silly myself ), but the odds based on what we know is that this almost certainly didn't happen.

In the end, both scientists AND historians who refuse to at least entertain new theories, even if they have merit and are backed by solid research, are probably just not very good at their job, or have some other hang-up. If you've encountered more historians than scientists that suffer from this flaw, then that's a real shame, but I don't think that should be some kind of reflection on the study of history in general.

[Tarbicus]

The reason for later Roman soldiers adopting the clipeus, the spatha and the hasta as their main weapons and shield was because ..... wait for it .... they rode to battle on horseback. That doesn't mean they had to fight battle on horseback, but every man was trained in horsemanship and had his own horse, and would on occasion at least need to fight as a cavalryman

What are your reactions? :wink:

The notion came from Historia Augusta, the Life of Aurelian, p207.
"Let each man curry his own horse and baggage-animal, let no one sell the fodder allowed him for his beast, and let them take care in common of the mule belonging to the century."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... an/1*.html

By 'clipeus' I mean any round or oval shield.