free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Fredg · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 9

As posted on MyCSW

Please Post:
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?

Free Forum

Fredg · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 9

Again, I really don't understand why we are making such a big distinction between science and history. Both relie on record-keeping and documentation of events or phenomenon, eventually analyzing and synthesising that information into an accurate model of those occurences. The only major difference is the source of that information and the nature of what they are documenting.

Science relies on a mixture of experimentation, physical evidence and observation for information and evidence, history, when concerning humans anyway, relies on artifacts and the accounts of observers for its information and evidence. Both disciplines later use this information as a means to support or attack the theories regarding the events or occurence that the information concerns.

rlevinson2011 · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 36

Fred the reason we are focusing so much on both the similarities and differences between science and history is because it is the premise of the class.

I know this is not a satisfactory answer in the slightest. While it appears you have your distinctions neatly lined up, it may behoove you to put your frustration aside (frustration I too, often have) and try to absorb what scientists, historians, philosophers and historiographers of the past have said on the matter regardless of whether or not you agree with it. If these questions were both simple and irrelevant it would seem odd so many well educated people have and continue to struggle with them.

edangelo · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 41

wait i made a new topic earlier tonight that karl also posted in.. we should probably consolidate?

GraceDrinkwater · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 10 Location: Location

sorry this is an annoying poast but in the question what time "changing" aply to? Changing when? isn't it constantly changing?

And of course they have a relationship! they are and alwyas will be related to eachother, you simply cant have one and not the other.

Kcameronburr · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 17

Fred: I think the distinction between history and science that rachel very forceful tried to hammer home with us today is class is that history is decidedly in reference to the past, while science is not. Don't know if that helps you.

Rachel: nice use of "behoove" Laughing

I think these questions are really hard. I don't understand how/can't articulate the ways philosophy and methodology of science and history are changing, so i cant speak to compatibility or conflict. if someone felt compelled to list some of the ways they're changing, I'll bring you a present tomorrow.

I wan to briefly mention "selective use" I think that this is something Turner does especially. His ideas reek of parts of hegel's philosophy, but also parts of kant's. A priori space and the frontier, and Hegel's ideas about dialectic struggle and life and change on the frontier. Turner accepts kants idea of a priori space, hegels dialectic struggle, but not hegels idea that there is no reality until we know it...etc.

He's selecting bits and pieces to prove his ideas, and disregarding the other key points of kant's and hegel philosophies, which stem from the same places, the dialectic and a priori.

Accepting only parts of a doctrine and disregarding others is something we definitly see today, and i think its something historic and scientific methodology have in common.

Fredg · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 9

Looking back at my post, I think that I worded my opening poorly. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to methodology rather than the nature of the two disciplines.

eraskin · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 11

We ended class today discussing in what ways both Turner and Marx where influenced by both Hegel and Kant, (good thing they were because because if they hadn’t been, pretty much 100% of our papers would have been pointless!!) But, I think Keaton brought up a really important point about “selective use”…

(wait this two post thing is extremely confusing. I just read the other one, and we’re talking about similar things with a different vocabulary)

So…I just changed my mind about what I‘m going to talk about, a consistent question throughout this post tonight is what is the difference between science and history. Maybe this is making it far too simple, but the way I’ve been thinking about it is History is the study of what has already happened. Science is the study of something that has always been.
Meaning history only looks at past events, what we do with that information is different, often it helps us understand our present (just like Turner said!) or speculate about the future (maybe some Marx?!) but it only arrives at those conclusions through events that have already happened
Science on the other hand has always existed. Evolution was discovered by Darwin but it existed before him. Science helps us see patterns in our natural world that we did not create. (although now a days we create all kinds of problems that effect “science” like global warming).

(p.s. i posted on both of these forums...hope that wasn't too confusing!!)

rlevinson2011 · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 36

AHH THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING THAT THERE ARE TWO THREADS! i feel like everyone wil inevitably miss out.

ANYWAYS, keaton said some excellent stuff that id like to reference in regards to my previous post--in the the other thread!

what keaton said about picking and choosing and dissecting earlier philosophies for ones own purposes was something I was thinking about but clearly didn't articulate. I don't think the picking and choosing process is possible (or at least, not as easy) for the PRACTICE of science as it is history.

Does anyone have an example of a methodology from science that has been spliced to form another?

CNassar · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 12

I'd say that the methodologies are not only changing in the ways that they are compatible, but the ways in which they can be applied to each other. And the way that they affect each other.

For example, in the movie we saw yesterday, the Social Darwinism, which was "rooted in German misinterpretation of Darwin's Origin of the Species" theory, directly affected the actions of German societies and furthermore affected the course of history.

TO BRING IT BACK TO THE TEXT... I'd say this statement holds true as well; no matter how convoluted or simple that connection and applicability was. For example, Charles Darwin, as a scientist, was working to discover more about evolution. In order to do so, he had to work with AND RESPECT the amount of time which this process of growth happened. The past, and the examination thereof, played an integral role in the study of evolution, and in that sense changed the way in which history could be evaluated and respected in terms of science. That's my opinion at least.

TravisLaw · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 14

If I understand Rachel's question about reusing a method in science for a new problem, It happens frequently. The most immediate example for me is the continual assimilation and improvement on the experimental method used by the Lab I am working at. Currently a large amount of Computer science, electron microscopy, conditioning, etc are being used. Almost all of these were used initially for different purposes by different people.

In regards to the discussion question, I feel like I might go in a different direction. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I am not confidant in my thoughts. The concepts people have put forward for Science and History have been refinements and enunciations of what Science and History are.

Science/History doesn't change over time, it isn't something fluid or mutable. Each person we have read has tried to use Science/History for their own investigations. Some of them [ Marx and Turner ] seem to spend more time focusing on their questions and others [ Kant ] are able to discuss how they think in more detail. Despite the amount of time they spend discussing their thoughts, these thinkers just show different facets of what Science and History are.

I have already started to go on for a while, so I will try to wrap this up. Each of the readings we have gone through has just refined our verbal definition and have not changed the intent.

sgilbert · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 7

Oh, jeez. This one's a hard one.

I mean, yes. The two definitely further one another. I think the question is: Do they do it well? Do science and history change each other in positive ways?

I don't know. I mean, look at Social Darwinism. Eugenics. The idea of racial purity. That there is a strange, negative hybrid of science and history.

You have radical outliers (who sometimes don't seem so radical or outlying) who cobble together bits and pieces of history and science to forward their own intense agendas.

I'm not sure yet what the distinction is between the two areas of study. Yes, history's in the past... but is that it? Is time the only separation between them? That seems a bit simple. Could just be the sci-fi geek in me mistakenly believing time travel is possible though. Eh.

sgilbert · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 7

Shoot. The more I think about it the more I think I posted rashly.

There are certainly positive hybrids and amalgamations of science and history. I was just having difficulty thinking of them for the looming, clamoring bulk that is genocide and "cleansing" and birthright. Forgive me

Anyways, I think that the ideals and methods behind the banners of science and history are evolving (and devolving) in ways that are compatible. Granted, what is and what is not compatible when it comes to the relationship between history and science is not a field I am well-versed in. But I don't see any...

Wait.

Do religion and morality count as history? I mean, some say (possibly mistakenly) that the bible is an historical document which recounts true events from our past. So....

Abortion? Science says that, when done correctly and at the appropriate time (as a prescribed action by a doctor), abortion is not fundamentally harmful to the majority of women. However, many religious figureheads stand by the idea that the bible forbids abortions. This, along with the moral issue of whether or not abortion is murder, present a snag in science's discoveries.

I feel like I'm going off on an unrelated tangent. I'm still not sure I completely understand the question.

Free Forum