|
Teaching Holocaust Denial in School? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Where did you get this definition( On closer observation it seems you got them from different sources)? (I have renumbered the definitions for my purposes) I really don't agree with definitions 4-6 and am iffy on 2-3. Definition 1 seems to be the closest to "science", to me at least. |
i just copy pasted the first definition i got from dictionary.com, i concur with some of it being senseless, but other parts of it seemed to be reasonable.
feel free to give me an 'acceptable' definition of science and we'll see how history measures up to it.
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
"History" is not "science". That is obvious enough |
no, it isn't obvious enough, especially when we don't share a definition of what science is. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
As for your comment on history and science, valid history does use scientific methodology to confirm or deny historical facts. After all, even if you were there to see Lincoln live, I fail to see how that would be an absolute 100% proof of his actual existance. |
dont you start getting epistemologocial on us, we're in deep enough as it is :p |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
Maybe I'm jumping in too late here, but they crammed this in my head in college over and over and thought I'd pass it on:
A scientific theory is systematic and logical and while it provides evidence for something, it does not prove something. And while it can be 99.999% accurate, that doesn't mean it's still true (there's a .0001% chance it's false). Once a theory is true (100% accurate), it becomes a LAW. So while there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution and hasn't been disproven by an opposing theory with more mounting evidence, the theory of evolution is still not a scientific truth or law.
I think history is both science and not science:
Common historical knowledge is not a scientific theory. You don't think, "Did the twin towers in Manhattan fall down?" and try to collect data to support it. There are witnesses, pictures and video footage of it, and unless you want to discredit the human senses and objective devices, it is fact that the twin towers fell, not a scientific theory.
However, explanations of why things happened can be are harder to measure and start off as theories (i.e. "Did the towers fall due to some conspiracy?"). These theories need a collection of evidence to gain support because there are not nearly enough witnesses or objective devices that were there to measure and make it common knowledge. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Why am I explaining myself?? If history was freaking science why isn't in a college's SCIENCE Department? Why is it the Language Arts or History Department?? Hmmmm? |
or the social science building? haha. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Anyone think it is a good idea? Or just wait until, if ever, it gets more attention in Sweden? |
I don't think its a good idea.
I don't think brining in history to a purely philosophical/religious debate is going to do anything but tarnish history. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I don't think its a good idea.
I don't think brining in history to a purely philosophical/religious debate is going to do anything but tarnish history. |
Heh, I posted the above before actually reading this thread through.
Now I just completed reading the thread through and I find it quiet hilarious how my comment above rings true in the context of the debate this thread has morphed into it.
Leave history alone guys!
*shakes head*
:p :haha: |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Hence my second sentence which you conviniently took out of the quote. |
Doh, you're right! I have done what I often criticize others of doing, I apologize.
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
As for your comment on history and science, valid history does use scientific methodology to confirm or deny historical facts. After all, even if you were there to see Lincoln live, I fail to see how that would be an absolute 100% proof of his actual existance. |
Haha! Now I can accuse you of the same thing! My arguement is not since history is not a science and cannot be proved with purely scientific methods it cannot be proved at all, but rather that science and scientific methods are not the ONLY means to prove something. And:
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Just because something is not a scientific theory, doesn't mean you can't bring evidence or facts to prove/disprove or support it. |
Which is in response to this quote:
| quote: |
the reason i can't prove ID or bring evidence/facts to support it... is because it is NOT a scientific theory.
|
I never said history never used "scientific methodology" but rather the study of history/discovery of/whatever is not "science". As an Engineering student I operate under a very strict definition of science and thus maybe complicated and sidetrack this thread more than necessary.
The quirk with history is that we cannot use "scientific methods", or whatever, to directly analyze said "history". However we can use "scientific methods" to directly analyze effects, documents, sources, etc. and thereby indirectly analyze that "history". Indirect analysis is often used in science, but rarely solely as it is in analyzing history. And rarely in "science" is anything studied or experimented without repetition. Thus through these reasonings I hold that history is not a "science" because it analyzes something has already happened, no repetition, and analyzes it indirectly. And it does these things not rarely, but solely.
Although, I am surprised that no one has brought up geology since that alone nearly destroys my whole arguement as it is held a "science" and mostly studies something that has already happened and analyzes it mostly indirectly.
However, I do concede this point because:
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
we don't share a definition of what science is. |
I am not the god of science and am not the end all of science definitions, thus my arguement basically means nothing since we do not hold a common definition of science.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
feel free to give me an 'acceptable' definition of science and we'll see how history measures up to it. |
Isn't enough that I concede must I rack my poor brain some more? I don't have my elemtary school science book anymore and I don't think the books I have now deign to deal with such stuff.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
or the social science building? haha. |
I never really understood that phrase and never really got why some people stopped calling history, history and anthropology, anthropology and the like. I have never heard a historian or history professor or anthropologist call themselves a social scientist. It just sounds wierd. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Isn't enough that I concede must I rack my poor brain some more? I don't have my elemtary school science book anymore and I don't think the books I have now deign to deal with such stuff. |
you didnt concede prior to the reply i'm quoting :p
however, in your reply you still affirm your initial statement of history not being a science - you should have some definition of science in mind to be able to say something like that... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
A scientific theory is systematic and logical and while it provides evidence for something, it does not prove something. And while it can be 99.999% accurate, that doesn't mean it's still true (there's a .0001% chance it's false). Once a theory is true (100% accurate), it becomes a LAW. |
That's just a matter of semantics. A "theory" - regardless of how you define it - must necessarily be made in reliance of objective fact to have any worth. If it is not made in reliance of the facts then the "theory" is either patently false (YEC) or completely useless (ID).
The fact that all theories are falsifiable doesn't mean that they can't be - for all intents and purposes - true beyond any reasonable measure of doubt. I mean, strictly speaking, it is not "100% accurate" that you are sitting in front of your monitor reading this right now - does that mean that it would make any sense for me to dismiss your existence as "just a theory"?
| quote: | | So while there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution and hasn't been disproven by an opposing theory with more mounting evidence the theory of evolution is still not a scientific truth or law. |
Yes it is.
| quote: | | I think history is both science and not science: |
Where history deals with facts, it really is a science. It deals with with places and events that are observable either now (through archaeology, which genuinely is a science) or were observed at the time (and preserved in the historical record) which makes it reliant on the empirical method, the very basis of science. When historians try to draw inferences from the facts and identify general historic "trends" from these facts (which could just as accurately be described as "theories") then history ceases to be a scientific pursuit and is instead more of a political one, where the theoretical interpretations made by the individual tend to be a more accurate reflection of the personal and societal millieau of the interpreter than of history itself (you can thank Foucalt for inspiring that post-modern speil). |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Haha! Now I can accuse you of the same thing! My arguement is not since history is not a science and cannot be proved with purely scientific methods it cannot be proved at all, but rather that science and scientific methods are not the ONLY means to prove something. And: |
Hm, well, what are those other means of proving something? Proving something means you've got enough data behind you (be it measurements or historical documents) that support your theory beyond reasonable doubt. When you don't have any evidence, you don't have history, you only have speculations and myths.
| quote: | | I never said history never used "scientific methodology" but rather the study of history/discovery of/whatever is not "science". As an Engineering student I operate under a very strict definition of science and thus maybe complicated and sidetrack this thread more than necessary. |
Well, I as an engineering student realize that "science" is not necessarrily limited to repeatable experimentation, it is often based purely on examination. You did point out geology as an example, but that's only one of many. Astronomy would be an even better one, considering that all you get to work with are photons which indirectly point towards the existance of stars which you can only observe without interaction.
| quote: | | The quirk with history is that we cannot use "scientific methods", or whatever, to directly analyze said "history". However we can use "scientific methods" to directly analyze effects, documents, sources, etc. and thereby indirectly analyze that "history". Indirect analysis is often used in science, but rarely solely as it is in analyzing history. And rarely in "science" is anything studied or experimented without repetition. Thus through these reasonings I hold that history is not a "science" because it analyzes something has already happened, no repetition, and analyzes it indirectly. And it does these things not rarely, but solely. |
Indirect analysis is actually used in science quite often. The measurements you're getting are rarely direct, usually they're just electric impulses from whose behaviour you can conclude the characteristics of the examined object. They are not an actual essential manifestation of that object's properties. The only thing is that here your measuring instrument is a once-living historian. And his accurracy is determined in exactly the same way as that of other instruments. You have a couple of them measure the same thing and see which ones give better results and which ones are off.
| quote: | | I never really understood that phrase and never really got why some people stopped calling history, history and anthropology, anthropology and the like. I have never heard a historian or history professor or anthropologist call themselves a social scientist. It just sounds wierd. |
Well, to be honest, some social sciences are more like semi-sciences considering that they still lack the pure formalism needed to be considered real sciences. Sociology and the like can only examine general trends and give general answers, but they still fail when it comes to quantifying data. Theoretically they can be upgraded into real sciences, but that would require some really sophisticated computer models, combined with some research into chaos theory and differential equations. But on the other hand, they do have many science-like qualities. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The fact that all theories are falsifiable doesn't mean that they can't be - for all intents and purposes - true beyond any reasonable measure of doubt. I mean, strictly speaking, it is not "100% accurate" that you are sitting in front of your monitor reading this right now - does that mean that it would make any sense for me to dismiss your existence as "just a theory"?
|
I never claimed that theories should be dismissed because they are not true. I agree with your statement. I was only saying that a theory is not (technically speaking) true or fact according to it's definitions in science. It is just likely true beyond a reasonable doubt. My conclusion (that I should have made) is that even though there's a .0001% the theory could be disproven, not accepting the theory would be illogical. However, keep in mind that if you take 10,000 theories with 99.999% accuracy, statistically one of them is wrong. So scientists are told that while their theory is beyond a reasonable doubt true, it is not a solid fact because of that razor-thin odd.
It would be bad science to claim that your theory is "true" or "fact" if it there's any chance it can be disproven. However, it is perfectly acceptable (and should be encouraged) to engage in behavior, further research, and other activities based on the acceptance of a particular theory. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Hm, well, what are those other means of proving something? Proving something means you've got enough data behind you (be it measurements or historical documents) that support your theory beyond reasonable doubt. When you don't have any evidence, you don't have history, you only have speculations and myths. |
I might be speaking out of my ass here (as I've failed to read all the posts in this thread in depth), but as a mathematician and logician I'm quite offended by your definition of "proof". (How) do you distinguish between analytical truths, *verified* by stringent proofs, and conjectures, "verified" by just not being proven wrong?
And considering this quote, what does "enough" mean? 10000 fully observed cases? ! million? And what is a "reasonable" doubt? And what separates Atlantis from Quarks? |
|
|
|
|
