Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Is History a Science? Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:26 |
Originally posted by Sparten
No way is history a science. Its not even an art.
In science Newtons Laws of motion are absolute, we can't reinterpret them, but we can very easily reinterpret almost everthing in History.
|
Newton's Laws of Motion aren't even true, just approximations that are applicable in a limited range of circumstances.
Edited by gcle2003 - 11-Sep-2006 at 08:27
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:32 |
History CAN be a science, but frequently it isn't.
It depends more than anything on the mental attitude and objectives of the historian involved.
Same is true of economics, psychology and a range of other subjects.
If you believe you are right, and try and prove that you are, you are not a scientist.
If you believe you are wrong, and try and prove that you are, then you are a scientist.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:49 |
Originally posted by Sparten
No way is history a science. Its not even an art.
In science Newtons Laws of motion are absolute, we can't reinterpret them, but we can very easily reinterpret almost everthing in History.
|
Who said You cant ? Go ahead & try & prove the new interpretation. Dont confuse inability to find new interpretation as a dictat or fatwa from the creator of that law. Newton never mentioned in any of his treatise that his laws are the words of god & cannot be challenged. If you understand what I mean dear! lol !
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
kotumeyil
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 09:37 |
Originally posted by akritas
The purpose of history is to promote not group self-esteeem, but understanding of the world and the past, dispassionate analysis, judgment and perspective, respect for divergent cultures and traditions, and unflinching protection for those unifying ideas of tolerance, democracy, and human rights that make free historical inquiry possible. So Yes is a Science
Even in the last century the History using badly
-from the Holywood scriptions
-from the pseudo-internet historians
-from nationalist purposes |
You have nice wishes but the actual situation is just the opposite. I think objectivity is possible in history when alternative "histories" are elaborated by a dialectic methodology. When alternative views of the past events are elaborated together, a realistic understanding of that specific event or historical period is possible.
Therefore the real matter is whether you are using a scientific methodology or not.
|
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 19:01 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Sparten
No way is history a science. Its not even an art.
In science Newtons Laws of motion are absolute, we can't reinterpret them, but we can very easily reinterpret almost everthing in History.
|
Newton's Laws of Motion aren't even true, just approximations that are applicable in a limited range of circumstances. |
Shouldn't be put this way. Newton Laws of motion are true within certain limits, but no longer applicable outside the boundaries of the relevent parameters. Those limits are usually well within what a human being experienced normally (light effects excluded). In fact, all laws are only applicable within certain limits.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 11-Sep-2006 at 19:05
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 22:23 |
Once more GCLE writes the truth the all and only one: history is a science... sometimes.
It is a science in the sense that as any other science its mission is to express reality. In this case a past reality.
Yet it is a soft science not a hard one. It is impossible to reproduce at will a historuc event.
Finally, I think history is a peculiar kind of science. Some actually claim it belongs to natural history or biology. Indeed why a man saying the planets appeared like that or the dinosaurs died because of this is more of a scientist than a human.
Ultimately the only problem is that humanity is baised on the question. Remember the yiddish proverb: "Who else than myself can know me? But if I know me am I still myself?"
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 23:05 |
No, history is not a science.
|
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 23:10 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Originally posted by gcle
Newton's Laws of Motion aren't even true, just approximations that are applicable in a limited range of circumstances. | Shouldn't be put this way. Newton Laws of motion are true within
certain limits, but no longer applicable outside the boundaries of the
relevent parameters. Those limits are usually well within what a human
being experienced normally (light effects excluded). In fact, all laws
are only applicable within certain limits. |
Except for the fact that gcle put it far more accurately and eloquently than you, exactly what is the difference between what you and he said?
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 00:40 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Originally posted by gcle
Newton's Laws of Motion aren't even true, just approximations that are applicable in a limited range of circumstances. | Shouldn't be put this way. Newton Laws of motion are true within certain limits, but no longer applicable outside the boundaries of the relevent parameters. Those limits are usually well within what a human being experienced normally (light effects excluded). In fact, all laws are only applicable within certain limits. |
Except for the fact that gcle put it far more accurately and eloquently than you, exactly what is the difference between what you and he said?
|
He is just eloquent; I'm accurate.
He claimed: Newton's laws aren't true but are only approximations: not true, only approximations.
The truth: Newton's Laws are valid within certain limits, no longer applicable outside those limits: the truth is limited.
Practical models are approximations of the Laws. The Laws themselves aren't approximations, but are formulated under certain ideal conditions (the limits). Get it now!
No wonder I prefer science over History. Science is fact; I can get Gcle cornered anytime, and put an end to his incessant riposte. I really need to stop being argumentative, it's a sign of weakness.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 12-Sep-2006 at 01:13
|
|
The Chargemaster
Chieftain
Kishokan
Joined: 02-Feb-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:21 |
For me the history herself is not a science. It`s just a history - a written/recorded past. The history herself is a source with lots of data for analising by the true sciences.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:25 |
Originally posted by The Chargemaster
For me the history herself is not a science. It`s just a history - a written/recorded past. The history herself is a source with lots of data for analising by the true sciences.
|
It may not be recorded necessarily. The invading muslim armies burnt the great library of Alexandria, but surely some part of that knowledge would survive orally too. This will not be written but neverthless is history.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:47 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
He is just eloquent; I'm accurate.
He claimed: Newton's laws aren't true but are only approximations: not true, only approximations.
The truth: Newton's Laws are valid within certain limits, no
longer applicable outside those limits: the truth is limited.
Practical models are approximations of the Laws. The Laws
themselves aren't approximations, but are formulated under certain
ideal conditions (the limits). Get it now!
No wonder I prefer science over History. Science is fact; I can
get Gcle cornered anytime, and put an end to his incessant riposte. I
really need to stop being argumentative, it's a sign of weakness. |
No quite the contray, you are incorrect.
Newtons Laws are only approximations. These approximations are valid within certain limits.
The true relationship will probably be a curve of somesort, to which
newtons laws approximate fairly accurate over the speeds we work at.
The world isn't binary, its not case of works at point A, doesn't work
at A+1. Don't confuse reality with our mathematical descriptions of
reality.
The invading muslim armies burnt the great library of Alexandria, but
surely some part of that knowledge would survive orally too |
They did not burn that library. It was burnt down several centuaries
before hand. (Apparently not by Chrisitian Fundamentalists either,
which is the story I heard)
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 02:05 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
He is just eloquent; I'm accurate.
He claimed: Newton's laws aren't true but are only approximations: not true, only approximations.
The truth: Newton's Laws are valid within certain limits, no longer applicable outside those limits: the truth is limited.
Practical models are approximations of the Laws. The Laws themselves aren't approximations, but are formulated under certain ideal conditions (the limits). Get it now!
No wonder I prefer science over History. Science is fact; I can get Gcle cornered anytime, and put an end to his incessant riposte. I really need to stop being argumentative, it's a sign of weakness. |
No quite the contray, you are incorrect. Newtons Laws are only approximations. These approximations are valid within certain limits. The true relationship will probably be a curve of somesort, to which newtons laws approximate fairly accurate over the speeds we work at. The world isn't binary, its not case of works at point A, doesn't work at A+1. Don't confuse reality with our mathematical descriptions of reality.
|
LOL. This conversation is over. No need to argue further. You are not going to teach me science mate. I have a degree in Electronics Engineering. Read that but I doubt it would make sense to you though. Do not confuse fundamental laws and laws as approximation.
Laws as approximations
Some laws are low (or high) limits of others, more general laws (or as scientists say, of more fundamental laws). For example, Newtonian dynamics (which is based on Galilean transformations) is simply the low speed limit of laws of special relativity (simply because Galilean transformation follow from Lorentz transformation at the limit of low speed). Similar, the Newtonian gravitation law follows from general realtivity at the limit of low gravitational potential (compared to square of speed of light), and Coulomb's law follows from QED at large (compared to range of weak interactions) distances. In such cases we understandably use more simple laws-approximations instead of more accurate fundamental laws.
Those laws which are just mathematical definitions (say, fundamental law of mechanics - second Newton's law ), or uncertainty principle, or least action principle - are absolutely correct (simply by definition). Others which reflect symmetries found in Nature (say, identity of electrons or homogenuity of space and time) are constantly being checked experimentally to higher and higher degree of accuracy. The fact that they have never been seen repeatably violated does not preclude testing them at increased accuracy, which is one of main goals of science. It is always possible for them to be invalidated by repeatable, contradictory experimental evidence, should any be seen. However, fundamental changes to the laws are unlikely in the extreme, since this would imply a change to experimental facts they were derived from in the first place.
Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see above examples), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalisations.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 12-Sep-2006 at 02:12
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 02:11 |
I have a degree in Electronics Engineering. |
I am studing the very same. Then you must know that when there is
fluctuation from the voltage coming out of a rectifier, you can
approximate the peak-peak curve with a straight line?
Even though its not a straight line, we say it is to make the maths easier.
Same deal with Newtons Laws, over a much larger scale.
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 02:15 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
I have a degree in Electronics Engineering. |
I am studing the very same. Then you must know that when there is fluctuation from the voltage coming out of a rectifier, you can approximate the peak-peak curve with a straight line? Even though its not a straight line, we say it is to make the maths easier.
Same deal with Newtons Laws, over a much larger scale.
|
What you don't understand, voltage fluctuation in a rectifier (application of a law) its behaviour is only an approximation of a Law. The Law, itself, as a mathematical or theoretical model, is the standard and therefore perfect within the limits it is defined. The voltage behaviour of a rectifier or any other electronic devices would deviate from its theorectical, ideal model.
Haven't you done Maths for engineers which deals with limits and boundaries yet? This concept should be quite clear for an Engineer of any sort.
pay attention to what I pasted above. An invalidated law can sometime be a close approximation, therefore, that's why it is no longer a law.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 12-Sep-2006 at 02:28
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 02:30 |
(This surely has to be one of the strangest arguements I've been in on this board - Are Newtons Laws approximations or not )
Precisely! A limit is an approximation. Let me quote your own post.
Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special
cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies
can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals.
That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close
approximations (see above examples), to which other terms or factors
must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g.,
very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or
masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are
actually better viewed as a series of improving and more precise
generalisations. |
One of the above examples is Newtons second law.
Still need convincing? Just ask.
Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Sep-2006 at 02:33
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:08 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
(This surely has to be one of the strangest arguements I've been in on this board - Are Newtons Laws approximations or not) Precisely! A limit is an approximation. Let me quote your own post.
Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see above examples), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalisations. |
One of the above examples is Newtons second law.
Still need convincing? Just ask.
|
Christ you truely have a problem of comprehension. A law is invalidated because is only a close approximation, therefore, no longer a Law.
Newton's laws are fundamental laws, not approximations, unless proven otherwise.
The limits I'm talking about aren't approximations but boundaries within which a law hold firm. Not to confuse with mathematical limit which is the behaviour of a function as you approach a point or infinity.
Newton's Laws are ideal models, why can't you get that simple concept. I really have to doubt that you have any Engineering background at all.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 12-Sep-2006 at 04:32
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:50 |
you cannot compare scientific subjects with history. As GCLE has aforementioned it can be approached in a scientific fashion. Newtonian science is a minuscule part of the total body of scientific knowledge and Laws are basic statements regarding the observed phenomenon. you can interpret the statements with a if-else logic to come closer to a particular truth. It doesn't make the basic statements fallible though. Basically in science everything has to be accounted for, when we balance a thermodynamic equation anything that can not be be accounted for is given to be entropy.
|
|
kotumeyil
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 05:15 |
Objectivity in writing history is highly questionnable; even if you choose a specific time period or subject, that very choice indicates your side. For example, if you tell the history of Church around the subject of scientific development, even if you tell exactly what happened, you are most probably at the side that criticizes scholastic thought. If you choose to write micro-histories, you're most probably criticizing the all-encompassing "great thories", etc. Therefore, the most healthy approach to the study of history requires the identification of the historians' sides first and then reading the "history" within this context.
|
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 05:29 |
Quetzalcoatl:
Interesting, although your contradictory arguments are rather difficult to decipher, I have discovered that, you are wrong!
But for the opposite reason, thus I was wrong too. Newtons 2nd Law is saved by simply redefining it.
The most common form you will find Newtons 2nd law in is F=ma, which I
note is not the one you quoted above. The one you quoted above does
work at relatavistic speeds.
If we were working with F=ma then in reality (or relativity)
Which when v << c is approximately F=ma. (Or the limit as v tends to 0 is F=ma)
But if we redefine Newtons Law to this:
It holds!
But for now I think I will leave this argument where it is. If you wish
to start a thread about how all science is mearly a description of the
real world I'd be happy to frequent it, but lets stop destroying dear
Aelfgifu's thread.
(ps, I can now spell your name without looking. I still have issues with Interesting though )
Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Sep-2006 at 05:33
|
|