11-06-2007, 11:17 AM
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.
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.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
