Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Is the historical method a scientific method? Question
Is the historical method a scientific method?
When I was a child in grade school, I learned that "The Scientific Method" had the following steps:
- Observe a phenomenon: find things by curious exploration.
- Research what you have seen: ask if someone else has explained it.
- Hypothesize about it: imagine an explanation for the phenomenon or experience. Formalize this hypothesis.
- Experiment to confirm or reject your hypothesis: design a reproducible test to confirm or disprove your theory. Control all possible variables; confuse only one thing at a time. (I later learned that falsification is an important issue in demarcation.)
- Record your method and results, and analyze the data from the experiment.
- Publish or share your results for others to critique and/or use.
The way that I learned it, the reproducible experiment was at the very heart of this method, and so science is constrained to what can be subjected to reproducible experiments, although the various steps can be subject to finer points.
Now I understand that there are scientific methods (plural), and that the demarcation problem is real. But historical sources such as the beginnings of great civilizations like the Mayas or the Egyptians give accounts about which I cannot imagine reproducible experiments, since there is no identifiable trace of many of their protagonists.
Is there a consensus as to whether historical narratives are empirically falsifiable?
From wikipedia:
Though historians agree in very general and basic principles, in practice "specific canons of historical proof are neither widely observed nor generally agreed upon" among professional historians.[1] Some scholars of history have observed that there are no particular standards for historical fields such as religion, art, science, democracy, and social justice as these are by their nature 'essentially contested' fields, such that they require diverse tools particular to each field beforehand in order to interpret topics from those fields.
Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments. And historians seem to view themselves as craftsmen, taking satisfaction in the result of their work rather than the theory of their method.
But do scientists view historians as scientists?
2 answers
The scientific method is not the mainstay of historical research.
As a rule, history deals with events of the past. This is not just in the broad sense of them happening temporally in a past time, but in the narrow sense that they are by definition events that are inextricably grounded in their historical context and cannot happen again. Note, a very similar event happening again is not the same as the event itself happening again.
It is not uncommon to hear the opinion that an understanding of past events is relevant to understanding the present and future. But the identity of past events is always respected - even if an event repeats, the two occurrences are still distinct subjects of historical study.
For example, there cannot be another Julius Caesar. If a statesman and general of similar characteristics was born, and perhaps in a similar sociopolitical, technological and geographic context, and maybe he was also named Julius Caesar - it would still be a distinct person and no historian would claim that this is the same Caesar and thus studying one or the other is redundant. One could construct an argument that conclusions from studying the Caesar of 50 BC can also be applied to the Caesar of 3050 AD. This would probably be met with controversy among other historians. If one claimed that the study of Caesar in 3050 AD is relevant to the Caesar of 50 BC that would be met with even more controversy.
The scientific method rests on the assumptions of rationality, objectivity and empiricism. It is assumed that the subject (physics, chemistry, biology) conforms to logical and mathematical principles, and that experiments can be repeated without loss of meaningful information. An experiment I did today can be used directly to understand an observation I made yesterday, and few scientists would challenge such an approach on principle. Subjects of historical study cannot be readily reproduced, and they do not necessarily conform to logical laws.
With that, obviously history is not some collective fantasy. They rely heavily on logic, math, philosophy, social and natural science, etc. There are occasionally some matters that come up in historical study that are settled by experiment ("The vikings could not have sailed to America, it's impossible for a long ship to get that far!"). There are routine scientific experiments that form vital evidence for historical theory. And of course, historical researcher apply ample discipline to their reasoning about their domain.
However, the main method of history is not empirical study. Experimental validation is not necessary nor sufficient to produce a piece of historical knowledge. The main method of historical study is the examination of primary sources (including archeological artifacts).
Moreover, much historical study is subjective in practice. One could argue that all history is subjective due to various subjective proximity biases (bias towards own culture, own ideology, own values, own goals and interests) and objective biases (the kind of historical evidence available to you at that time). Beyond that, it is not uncommon for people to deliberately seek subjective conclusion about history, for a variety of reasons. This puts it at odds with science which inherently assumes the objectivity of the thing studied (ie. the laws of physics don't change according to who is looking).
In sum, if the question is "Is there any overlap whatsoever between history and science?" IMO it's a moot point that comes down to many trivial, hair-splitty things that ultimately don't matter and are boring. But on examination, there are obviously radical differences in the fundamental qualities of these two fields, and on reflection nothing useful or interesting is gained from attempting to represent them as being the same in any meaningful way. Therefore, I can't truly answer the question, but I am hoping to convince you that the similarities don't matter :)
0 comment threads
Historians resort to source criticism rather than reproducible experiments.
Well this is clearly not true. The whole purpose of archeology is the "experiment" phase of the scientific method. Some historian has a theory about for example how Roman baths were designed, based on records etc. Then some archeologists dig up an actual bath in Pompeii and then they can verify or reject the theory.
This whole procedure does of course become easier or harder based on how many written records as well as ruins/remains there are from that time and that civilization. Often a hypothesis can be made by studying similar cultures during the same period.
Frequently, historians have some sort of theoretical canon or likely probability regarding how something must have been. Then new archeological findings proves it wrong and they have to adjust the theories.
0 comment threads