Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:41 pm Post subject: Philosophies and Methodologies of Science and History
"Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?"
The philosophies of Science are now almost exclusively contained within the discipline: any question or hypothesis will have been built with an extensive understanding of past Scientific success and failure (rather like Hume's belief that effect is the product of experience). Thus, the discipline grows only from itself by recycling its own resources. (Take Darwin's Abstract, for example - his structure was categorized into arguments flowing into one another, but he made sure to include arguments by other naturalists to explain his own). Scientific methodologies seem very detached to me - where an experiment could have previously been only slightly dependent on an external apparatus, and far more reliant on the skill of the Scientist themselves or through observation, now I see devices exclusively providing the information. Scientific methodologies no longer involve the active discovery of knowledge by the scientist, rather the acceptance of the results garnered from often autonomous tools. (In much the same way, Marx said that the working class is left to focus on perfection of a part of a product rather than the whole thing itself, as they are detached from the final entity - their focus thus lands on their work with the object rather than the whole object itself, much like Scientific methodologies).
The philosophies of History are much more self-aware than they have ever been. I think that previously, history was much more of an obligation than a discipline, in that it was the passing on of information (and this passage inherently conveyed interpretation, which established the discipline). Now, there is a consciousness to the discipline, an understanding that what is recorded as significant now will thus be considered significant in the future, due to a greater understanding and higher dependability on an author/reader relationship. (The widespread and fairly sudden acceptance of Turner's frontier theory really demonstrates this, particularly because it was by an American, for future Americans, thus integrating both the author/reader relationship with a consciousness of a future continuation of this connection). Despite this growing change, I don't think anything has changed within History's methodologies. It seems to me that there are levels of studying the past (such as through primary/secondary/tertiary sources) that are the bare bones of history; for these to change, the discipline as a whole would be inherently altered. (For instance, to make secondary sources more prevalent than primary would render the discipline into something more resemblant of historiography rather than History).
All this being said, I do think that these changes are compatible. However, they are so because of their specifics - that is, these changes within the disciplines could just as easily be incompatible: they are not in accord because they are changes within the disciplines of History and Science, rather because of the specific changes within the disciplines. Science is internally focused, and History is tied to its own foundation - in this way, they're both introspective, and thus compatible as they don't inhibit one another. In addition, I think these changes are related not because of the specific changes themselves, but because of their impacts. For instance, the impact of internally generated ideas in Science creates a self-sustainability that is also found in the lack of change of Historical methodologies, which thus preserves the discipline.
Last edited by amartinez on Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
A common aspect that both history and science share as far as methodology goes is that both require evidence and theories. In a way, both science and history take the form of the dialectic most of the time, as the progress we achieve in science / history can only be accomplished by the testing of theories (the synthesis we achieve from thesis and antithesis).
Moving away from the Hegelian train of thought, it is clear that Darwin, Marx, and Turner all thought of history and science in the same way; that science and history are not only the search for truth based on available evidence, but also the tools we need to make the next big progressive step. For Darwin, such a progressive step was the world-shattering theory of evolution and how trees and men had the same ancient ancestors (a bit of a stretch, but Darwin inferred this possibility). For Marx, it would be the progression from capitalism to communism. For Turner, the never-before-seen connections between American success and westward expansion. I'm not saying that these 3 people simply used science and history as tools, but rather that they were the mediums in which such progress occurred.
History has changed from a record of past events to finding patterns in human events. Analysis is also brought into the picture, as well as questioning. Science shifted from a way to explain the unknown to stepping towards a greater cause, a greater knowledge.
I don't think that the two were being pushed together, but more like existing together and overlapping with each other. However, I don't think that they're necessarily compatible. They are two different disciplines. For these two to be compatible, I think that they would have to be completely alike. Which, they aren't.
History and Science have a relationship where science can be an explanation for history and history can be an explanation for science, (ex. scientifically speaking, chemicals in the brain cause a person to do something that explains their history? or a historical pattern explains something in science.)
I think the biggest thing that these two have in common is nature and experience. Nature and experience can be used as explanations for both disciplines.
History and Science both work as disciplines for people to study to make a better future. So they eventually go the same way. I agree with Tino that History and Science both need evidences. History is studying the events and learn something form it. Science is about study some explanations of the world and explain more. I think the two of them work together for human to learn more about the future, one of them helps us to understand the past and one of them helps us to understand the present.(I actually didn't quite get the first question) So in this case, they are not pushing against each other. Actually they are a lot of benefits to learn these two subjects together. History tells us when and how did the scientists figure out something, so we can compare the scientific based on the same time period. Science, also affects the History a lot. For example, the Church always played the role of denying some theories like the Sun is in the center. The reason why they denied can be the religion and who got the power. Those are all the key points to understand a part of history. So the relationship could be History knowledge could be the foundation of understanding Science, Science, however, provides a lot of good examples to support or explain History.
I really like what Emma had to say. I think to go off of that, by the time we have gotten to Darwin, Turner and Marx, history and science no longer are attempting to explain the entire world. If we contrast Aristotle and these thinkers you can see the newer thinkers are all working on a much smaller level. Instead of attempting to explain and understand the entire world in one theory they are each looking to explain aspects of the world around them and they are looking for patterns and themes instead of explanations.
The movement away from explanation and more into examination is clear in both disciplines. Science however is still maintaining a more explanatory stance with Darwin and his theory of evolution, while history is moving into more abstract and widespread concepts, themes and patterns.
In a very long-term sense, I believe that the methodologies of science and history started in a very similar place, then moved apart, and in the last few centuries have begun to realign. In the era of Aristotle, scientific experimentation (particularly pertaining to physics) was completely out of the question. Both History and Science ('natural philosophy') were studied through the lens of personal experience and observation in order to draw patterns from the current and past world. When experimentation came into fashion, Science drifted away from the subjective approach taken with History, tending toward universal laws that could not be changed even by human interference and testing. We saw that Darwin's theory of evolution was sometimes discredited by those who claimed that his inability to replicate evolution in a lab setting undermined its validity. Nowadays, however, the growing acceptance of not-yet-proven theories attempting to fill in the gaps of scientific knowledge echoes a historian's sentiment: we only have as much evidence of past events as we do now, and must fill in the gaps for ourselves until more concrete evidence is discovered.
I think that science and history have changed significantly over time. History has evolved from a record of past events to a record of past events with an analysis of those events. This analysis ranges from cause to and effect to future implications. By analyzing history we are able to gain fuller understanding of our world.
I can only think of a very subtle change for science, that is our progression through time. As time goes on we keep gaining scientific information, and we build our scientific knowledge on this past scientific knowledge. I don't think this change is necessarily a positive one because in a way it limits the discipline of science. Scientists are not as open to new things and new ways of scientific interpretation because there is a set methodology to science that has so far proven very successful.
I think the relationship between the change between science and history can be thought of as basically just change of time, and progress to a fuller understanding of things, yet not necessarily a positive progress. I think that the changes are in a way opposites to each other. Because history as we progress throughout time we are opening up to new ways of analysis, yet with science as we progress we are becoming set in specific methodologies and not necessarily expanding the discipline.
I didn't realize that this was in context of the readings and the 19th century. In terms of the reading I agree with Julia and I agree that the study of history and science has definitely moved to a smaller scaler. I think that science and history have changed so that they are more similar. Galileo was studying science by observation and experimentation, he was not looking into the past, while Darwin was studying science and using observation and looking into the past. Another way that history was different in the 19th century (at least for Darwin) was that there was less emphasis on experimentation. I think that the study of history has definitely evolved and in a way become like science in the sense that there is a set method to the discipline. We saw in the Herodotus and Thucydides readings that the discipline of science did not yet have a set methodology. I think that while there is always room for improvement we see with thinkers such as Marx and Turner that the study of history follows a methodology of careful analysis of cause and effect and further implications. I think another change in history is that with Hegel it was thought that all progress in history was positive, but with Marx Turner and Darwin they thought that while history was always progressing it was not always a positive process.
Last edited by Eve Frankel on Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
I'm still trying to get a grasp on this question, but I'll try to write some of the ideas that I have currently. One trend that I noticed among Darwin, Marx and Turner is the idea that both man (Marx and Turner) and animals (Darwin) are following a trend or a path. Marx saw change over time as linear and inevitable. Humanity had an ultimate goal of freedom that would be achieved through socialism. Turner saw humanity engage in a cycle of discovery, innovation, and depletion. Darwin saw change as a natural part of life that comes only when nature necessitates it.
These ideas seem to have come about through observations of trends in the world around them. This seems to be a departure from the Galileo trend of scientific experimentation and personal observation.
"Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?"
I think that history has changed from simply being the study of events and their chronological relation to other events to an analysis of the connections between these events. History used be a simple method of writing down events and occurrences in chronological order, but now it's become a bit more of an analysis of these events. Historians make deductions from these events, find the causes and effects, and find how they're connected. I think that the methodologies of all subjects in the world, not just History and Science, must change as history progresses. I agree with Emma in that in order for the two to be compatible, they must be very similar, but they are not. History and Science are two completely different subjects. As we've discussed endlessly in class, I do believe that the two subjects share some similarities, but I don't think they are necessarily compatible. [/b]
Are the philosophies and methodologies of Science and History changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
The more I think about it the more I am I convinced that you can't escape the dialectic. At first I thought that a wholly new idea could emerge in History but looking through the lens of each of the men we have covered I can't find an application of the discipline that does not involve some form of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis trifecta. Same goes for Science.
History is about humans and Science is about everything else (wow this has been dumbed down). As for being compatible, it depends on whether you view History as human-centered or human-focused. I don't think the existence of History as a discipline means that human beings are the most important, Science certainly seems to disagree with this. I think they peacefully coexist and seem to share the same larger goal while running parallel to each other on topic.
I don't really think I've answered the question because I'm honestly not quite sure what it's asking.
Even after reading the responses i'm still ridiculously confused on what we are supposed to be writing. here is a shot though...
I think that the dialectic can be applied to both history and science. I also think that history and science attempt to examine how and why things happen. They both require evidence and sources and both are documented. They are both also shared with other people. I really don't know what we are supposed to be saying... I thought the reading was very interesting and I could talk about the three men and what we talked about in class but otherwise im not really sure what to do.
I have a very difficult time thinking about these questions. In trying to have a better understanding of Hegel, I came across this interesting quote: “What is obtained in this field of labor is the true, and, as such, the eternal; it is not what exists now, and not then; it is true not only today or tomorrow, but beyond all time, and in as far as it is in time, it is true always and for every time”(245, On Art, Religion, Philosophy). I don't know if I buy this entirely, but I do think that in a way this complicates Marx's claim that human alienation requires a practical solution (of course, Marx was writing this in response to Hegel, but I think I side with Hegel on this one). I think that certain progressions in science and history that lead us to believe that previously held axioms about unknowability are somewhat wrongheaded in that they limit (paradoxically) the scope of what we're capable of knowing.
Anyway, this doesn't mean that the changes that've taken place are not entirely ostensible/irrelevant. But I do think the assumption that truth will somehow become more lucid/attainable through "progression." I am confused.
"Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?"
I think that science and history are indeed changing in a way that is compatible to each other now (during the time of Marx, Darwin, and Turner). Both seem to have shifted their viewpoint to focus much more on both the "how" and the "why" of their separate disciplines. Also, what I think is just as important if not more important, they both focus much more heavily on the idea of progress. Darwin discussed how every species has evolved (progressed) from another species and how at the beginning we had maybe four or five species that everything now is currently descended from. Marx discussed social progress, and the cycle of governments that he had observed. Turner discussed social and political progress too, citing his "frontier thesis" as to how the west is colonized and what the social implications of the colonization are for us as Americans. Overall there seem to be more similarities than differences as to how these disciplines are evolving.
Rachel, I too am very confused. Anyway, I find it interesting and I agree with what Tino said in that Darwin, Marx and Turner all saw science and history as progressive steps. Each in their own way they used these ways of thinking to progress their individual expertise. In a way this relates to the thinking of Hegel. They way they thought encouraged improvement for humanity. Darwin saw the world as an ever changing thing that has it's own order, something that changes in different ways. I find this directly linking with what Hegel said and how he influenced science. To try answer the question about philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible... I'm not really sure. I think the way humanity thinks about both of these topics has grown and changed immensely since these thinkers were alive, but I don't know (or maybe I just can't see) how they are directly linked.
I dunno... I'm kind of drawing a blank on this one. Let's break it down, maybe? That might get me somewhere...
Initially, I presumed that the methodology of science is (redundantly) the scientific method, with hypothesis, experiment and analysis... but Darwin does the opposite of that. He just theory-crafts based on observation and analysis of those observations, without experiment. But he's still absolutely practices science, right? So the methodology is more than the scientific method, I guess...
The methodology of history, as I see it, is about exploring causality, not only what happened but also why. Marx and Turner both seem to approach history in this regard.
I don't immediately see how the different methodologies relate to each other? Maybe in experimentation and theory-crafting, one is essentially studying causality, so there's one possible similarity between science and history. Makes sense, if Kant is correct; causality is the only way we can interpret the world.
In that way, it seems compatible, but I don't really want to make more stuff up, and I don't think I have much of anything to contribute to the conversation. Honestly, I'd be fine with this being one of my two passes.
POST 11PM EDIT: A few people earlier (Tino, Ruby, Rachel) discussed the the dialectic as a common thread in the three thinkers, which I fully agree with. They all care about causality, they all care about the dialectic (whether or not they are fully aware of it). Maybe their philosophies are "synthesis" of both Kant and Hegel... of course, this is probably an overly simplistic view and might attribute way too much power to Kant and Hegel. Other thinkers existed beyond those two, darn it! Stop trying to find patterns where they probably don't exist, self!
Last edited by Mark Gartsbeyn on Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[/b]