Should History be a science?

[botanika]

A lot of History comes from stories, predominantly within religious, cultural or political bias. History is based on books written by previous generations of historians, who based their works on works of previous generations of historians, supplemented by archeological digs (great deal of assumptions made as people didn't usually mark their belongings with dates), so what mathematical or scientific treatment has been applied to history?

The official historical timeline is accepted in the same way as gravity, and the movement of the sun; many nations have developed their identity based on official history but how much of the documents, places, names and dates have be accurately proven via contemporary scientific testing and methodology? How accurate is radio carbon dating in historical times? Are many ancient civilisations younger and more condensed than commonly thought?

History textbooks and documentaries love to show us nice illustrations and re-enactments but where is the hard conclusive mathematical and empirical testing? A lot of people just accept history as fact. 'The story has been told for a long time - it must be true'. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the 16th century from a contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the 'Dark Ages' and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. The Old Testament even seems to refer to mediaeval events.

Ancient history is based on evidence "discovered" since the 15th century and arranged into a spurious standard timeline in the 18th century. (In some cases, the evidence was discovered much more recently: some Eastern religious texts were only uncovered in the 20th century.) It can be argued that all those ancient chronicles are different versions of events which really happened roughly between 1000 AD and 1400 AD. After a relatively short-lived Eurasian empire disintegrated, each nation made up their own version of the empire's history, and generally each new version of the story was set farther back into the past than the previous one. (The newest version is the Hindu Krishna myth which is set about 10,000 years before the present day.)

It may be possible that human evolution is far more linear, gradual and irreversable than previously thought. Were all these ancient histories as ancient as they claimed? The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17-18th century only. It is recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation. The civilization of Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 12-15th century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone. Islam with all its key figures is datable to the 15th/16th century A. D. We know strictly NOTHING about the events that predate the 10th century A. D.

This is the basis of Anatoly Formenko's work: http://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-Eclipses-Chronology/dp/2913621074/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310353784&sr=1-1

I don't know myself but thought it could be an interesting discussion. Id certainly like to see more science in history. Its obviously highly controversial so like any revisionist theories it has its opponents however a convergence of mathematics, statistics, rigorous scientific testing and more accurate dating/cronology along with contemporary genetics could re-write history. It may be a completely different story to what we learned at school.

Discuss

Edited July 11, 2011 by botanika

[FancyPants]

I must be confusing some things. The Rosetta Stone is dated to around 200BC, since there is ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs, ancient Greek, and a third which I completely forget; wouldn't that be reasonable enough proof of history for at least that one example of that exact time? That is to say, it not being able to prove the events shown pre ca 200BC?

Edited July 11, 2011 by FancyPants

[tipz]

An interesting quote :

History... is an aggregation of truths, half-truths, semi-truths, fables, myths, rumors, prejudices, personal narratives, gossip, and official prevarications. It is a canvas upon which thousands of artists throughout the ages have splashed their conceptions and interpretations of a day and an era. Some motifs are grotesque and some are magnificent. ~Philip D. Jordan

[botanika]

I must be confusing some things. The Rosetta Stone is dated to around 200BC, since there is ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs, ancient Greek, and a third which I completely forget; wouldn't that be reasonable enough proof of history for at least that one example of that exact time? That is to say, it not being able to prove the events shown pre ca 200BC?

 

From a scientific perspective the Rosetta Stone has to be firstly irrefutably dated to 200BC to be legitimately that age. There is a decree on the stone issued 196BC on behalf of King Ptolemy V but is this date actually true? In many ways the Rosetta Stone is the corner stone of classical history however it is not unique. According to Formenko, Almagest was compiled in 16th/17th century from astronomical data of 9-16th century. As the King of astronomers Ptolemy is proven to be a medieval phantom. The third script on the Rosetta stone is demotic.

[Undergrounder]

History really is a kind of science because it's evidence based. People look up primary and secondary sources and then write a history that fits those sources. And then other historians challenge that version of events or find other sources to re-write the history. The only thing that stops it being a real science is there are few experiments. Historians might not be taught the scientific method explicitly, but these days I think they understand the importance of evidence.

If there are experiments we can do now that would confirm or deny the historical record, then I think that should be a legitimate part of the process, and yeah, that's a good thing.

But are you forgetting stuff like carbon dating? That's pretty scientific and I think most historians would treat it as legitimate. Good historians don't rely on stories at all... When I was taught the subject at school, the problems with secondary sources were drilled into us all the time. Everything we wrote had to be evidence based, or comprehensively footnoted so that anyone reading it could challenge the assumptions and check the facts.

[botanika]

But are you forgetting stuff like carbon dating? That's pretty scientific and I think most historians would treat it as legitimate. Good historians don't rely on stories at all... When I was taught the subject at school, the problems with secondary sources were drilled into us all the time. Everything we wrote had to be evidence based, or comprehensively footnoted so that anyone reading it could challenge the assumptions and check the facts.

 

I mentioned carbon dating but was questioning how accurate it is. In history books how often is the process and calibration of carbon dating explained in detail? Many historians and scientists themselves will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether. Even if a carbon dating was accurate it may not explain the rest of a historical event's complexity. Radiometric dating techniques are based on sound scientific principles, but rely on many basic assumptions.

Footnotes and sourcing is fine for modern history because the cronology is more complete and evidenced but the further back in history one goes the less primary sources there are to accurately prove correct.

Again, I dont know if Formenko's theory is correct, but find it interesting to ponder. We can see how the media can manipulate contemporary history - I wonder how much of the past has been heavily editted and manipulated. Even Hitler once said something along the lines of: 'Let me write the textbooks and I will control the next generation'.

Edited July 11, 2011 by botanika

[Undergrounder]

I mentioned carbon dating but was questioning how accurate it is. In history books how often is the process and calibration of carbon dating explained in detail? Many historians and scientists themselves will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether. Even if a carbon dating was accurate it may not explain the rest of a historical event's complexity. Radiometric dating techniques are based on sound scientific principles, but rely on many basic assumptions.

Footnotes and sourcing is fine for modern history because the cronology is more complete and evidenced but the further back in history one goes the less primary sources there are to accurately prove correct.

Again, I dont know if Formenko's theory is correct, but find it interesting to ponder. We can see how the media can manipulate contemporary history - I wonder how much of the past has been heavily editted and manipulated. Even Hitler once said something along the lines of: 'Let me write the textbooks and I will control the next generation'.

 

Sorry don't know how I missed that. Yeah for sure, if people are taking that attitude to carbon dating then they're doing it wrong. Cherrypicking evidence like that only gets you into trouble...

Sure I think questioning history is important, and that in general, as a society we don't question the media or the science/history enough.

BUT here's the other problem, and it's just as big. You can take it too far and be too skeptical too. Just because you can't prove history 100%, doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. It sounds like doubt for doubt's sake. For instance you said:

From a scientific perspective the Rosetta Stone has to be firstly irrefutably dated to 200BC to be legitimately that age. There is a decree on the stone issued 196BC on behalf of King Ptolemy V but is this date actually true?

This comes across to me as making this kind of mistake. At the end of the day I can question everything... I can question that the sun will come up tomorrow, and I can't prove 'irrefutably' that it will. I can't prove that that date on the rosetta stone is accurate, but do I have a genuine reason to doubt it? And by the way I don't think the scientific perspective would require irrefutable proof. That sounds more like the mathematical perspective, and the rest of science doesn't work that way. We just don't need 100% mathematical certainty to be able to accurately predict (or record) things. I'm sure they used thousands ... millions of assumptions to build a rocket that could take an astronaut into space. But at the end of the day they did it, and it worked. We can do good science; We can write good history relying on assumptions and without requiring a perfect understanding of the facts.

So i'm quite happy to believe in the generally accepted historical record.. I think the evidence is accurate enough to be a decent guide to the actual dates. If Formenko can give me enough reason to doubt them, then I would listen. But in the face of all the generally accepted evidence, the burden of proof is on him.

[Rabaelthazar]

I've come across this guy before and researched him a bit. He seems to be an absolute crackpot.

Having said that, there is no way of being 100% sure what transpired in history, really.... even going back only a generation. You could be living in a world like that Jim Carey movie (I can't remember the name) and everyone around you is feeding you bullshit.... but, it's probably not the case.

Also, even with current times there's no way really to know for sure what's happening outside your immediate surroundings. I see footage of wars overseas, but how do I know for sure that I'm not watching actors with toy pistols running around a movie set? I've never been to the pyramids of Egypt. They could be cardboard cut-outs for all I know.

The bible is a perfect example (moving away form the present again). THere are people who believe that it is historically accurate and people who think it's complete metaphor. No one knows.

Although we can't be 100% sure of history, the current accepted theories of our ancestry seem ok. We might be out by a bit here and there, but Fomenko's theory seems to have very little weight behind it and he manages to get some followers due to the very act that it's difficult to disprove him completely. There's no definitive corpse of Jesus. Did he exist? Did he live 2000 years ago or 800 years ago? Again, no one knows.

If I get a chance, I'l try and dig up some of the stuff I found last time I looked into him.

[botanika]

BUT here's the other problem, and it's just as big. You can take it too far and be too skeptical too. Just because you can't prove history 100%, doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. It sounds like doubt for doubt's sake. For instance you said: From a scientific perspective the Rosetta Stone has to be firstly irrefutably dated to 200BC to be legitimately that age. There is a decree on the stone issued 196BC on behalf of King Ptolemy V but is this date actually true?

You're right and one has to ask: if the Rosetta Stone is not unique, then when was the first draft done? Who wrote the original before it was ever transposed into 3 scripts?? The Rosetta Stone is possibly only a small piece of what we have discovered.

I've come across this guy before and researched him a bit. He seems to be an absolute crackpot.

Having said that, there is no way of being 100% sure what transpired in history, really.... even going back only a generation. You could be living in a world like that Jim Carey movie (I can't remember the name) and everyone around you is feeding you bullshit.... but, it's probably not the case.

Also, even with current times there's no way really to know for sure what's happening outside your immediate surroundings. I see footage of wars overseas, but how do I know for sure that I'm not watching actors with toy pistols running around a movie set? I've never been to the pyramids of Egypt. They could be cardboard cut-outs for all I know.

The bible is a perfect example (moving away form the present again). THere are people who believe that it is historically accurate and people who think it's complete metaphor. No one knows.

Although we can't be 100% sure of history, the current accepted theories of our ancestry seem ok.

 

Yep I read a few reviews that rejected him and some that strongly supported him. I have to step back objectively and fathom whether Formenko was simply publishing the results he collected - what he gathered from his experiments and had to run with - plus the subjectivity of the media and reviewers that portray him. He is ultimately another way point in theory. I kinda wish there were more people writing about history from different perspectives and disciplines. It could at least help free history from being so tabloid and dogmatic. History seems to hide away beneath religion and politics like a sucker fish next to a shark.

[CβL]

Just so we're clear, the Rosetta stone can't be carbon-dated to when it was inscribed - only to when the rock was formed.

History can become more scientific, but I don't think it can quite become a science as it is not replicable.

[botanika]

History can become more scientific, but I don't think it can quite become a science as it is not replicable.

 

Yes, more scientific stewardship.

[Slybacon]

Scientifically speaking. In the Quantum world the present effects the past as much as the future. So facts may be irrelavent next to observations in the moment.

[Gunter]

history is opinion,

all belief is, regardless of the validity or truth of that belief

perception is all that exists

fact is merely a statement of belief in something as having truth independent of perception

but still being perceived

[woof woof woof]

history is all about TRYING to portrait(understand) the past as objective as possible. It has to be elevated to the level of science in order to get a clear as possible picture.

So many people interpet the past incorrectly. Just because they dont have all the details.

Understanding the past is important for so many reasons. It enriches our lives on so many llevels. to know where we were can help us understand where we want to go.

bla bla bla

YES!!!

[CβL]

fact is merely a statement of belief in something as having truth independent of perception

but still being perceived

A fact is an innate truth, something that is truly objective. Hence why there are no facts. We use the shortcut to say something is "almost certainly a fact", but with the clause that "there is a tiny, tiny, tiny margin that our observations may have missed which would invalidate this fact." So we have no facts, because there are none.

Edited July 14, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[mutant]

nice one.

in the past, I regarded history as definately NOT A SCIENCE , because [my arguement back then] it spoke for the masses and not for me, the individual.

but i have shifted from this point of view since I read some decent history back in 2004.

moreover, I find what I call scientifism and the debate for reality based on what is trully 'scientific' full of wrongs.

[Undergrounder]

A fact is an innate truth, something that is truly objective. Hence why there are no facts. We use the shortcut to say something is "almost certainly a fact", but with the clause that "there is a tiny, tiny, tiny margin that our observations may have missed which would invalidate this fact." So we have no facts, because there are none.

 

You can't say that there are no facts. Under your definition the statement "there are no facts" is itself a fact. And if that statement is a fact, then there are facts.

Also "1 + 1 = 2" is a statement of fact that is innately true and truly objective.

Facts facts facts.

[Seldom]

i think you guys miss the point in that science is about measurement - it isn't exclusively about fact accumulation, science isn't concerned with capital T Truths, it's integral to the nature of scientific progress that it's truths be 'small t truths' - it's not a contentious view, science progresses through paradigm shifts, meaning facts must be continually subject to revision, falsification and recontextualisation - facts are less important than the underlying assumptions that legitimate them. i'm only being pedantic because i'm nearing the end of a degree where i can't avoid learning social science methodology. it's not rocket surgery, the scientific process involves:

deriving a specific, falsifiable hypothesis from a general theory

systematically manipulating (or in correlational or quasi-experimental research observing) a single variable within a controlled (for experimental, otherwise no control) environment

interpreting whether or not it's possible to generalise results of from the tested sample to the population from which it comes

^this is the simple method of induction, supporting and disproving general principals with specific observations - it's the same in the hard sciences. If you can explain iether how the study of history could conform to these basic principals, or outline another method sufficiently systematic to be deemed scientific, not only will i mail you a silver dollar, i would pretty much guarentee your position as a founder of a new academic discipline. history is intangable, science is a method to study what is material. this is entry level stuff. the 'everything is perception' shenanigans is interesting on a 'narrowing my eyes while nodding with my hand on my chin' level, but come on, be real.

Edited July 15, 2011 by humanzee

[Gunter]

You can't say that there are no facts. Under your definition the statement "there are no facts" is itself a fact. And if that statement is a fact, then there are facts.

Also "1 + 1 = 2" is a statement of fact that is innately true and truly objective.

Facts facts facts.

 

if you are breeding 1+1=3+

but actually 2 is 1 group and 1 doesn't exist itself in any independent way.

this is a lot like saying blue and yellow make green is a fact, but really blue and yellow and green don't even exist, colors do not exist outside of the way we perceive them. Remember that all we sense is processed and allocated to specific distinctions, even our field of vision is not what it is, because the brain flips what it sees, the retinal image is upside down compared to the observed material.

As far as color, different animals experience it differently and our technology can cause phase shifting too, how we experience things is not objective, though that is objective truth.

there is no real content to the idea that saying there is no such thing as facts is a fact that is self subject because this is all thought and does not exist outside of thought, the numbers do not exist, no where in nature is there actually math, this is why Einstein said that math is approximate science, not an exact one.

I agree with science being a philosophy of falsification, but it is about probability, not fact at all. It never proves anything per say, just gives strong indications but is always open to the possibility of falsification.

History is not falsifiable and verifiable without time travel.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Archaea

[Undergrounder]

if you are breeding 1+1=3+

but actually 2 is 1 group and 1 doesn't exist itself in any independent way.

this is a lot like saying blue and yellow make green is a fact, but really blue and yellow and green don't even exist, colors do not exist outside of the way we perceive them. Remember that all we sense is processed and allocated to specific distinctions, even our field of vision is not what it is, because the brain flips what it sees, the retinal image is upside down compared to the observed material.

As far as color, different animals experience it differently and our technology can cause phase shifting too, how we experience things is not objective, though that is objective truth.

there is no real content to the idea that saying there is no such thing as facts is a fact that is self subject because this is all thought and does not exist outside of thought, the numbers do not exist, no where in nature is there actually math, this is why Einstein said that math is approximate science, not an exact one.

 

I'm just being argumentative because i'm bored... You could argue both sides to death, but this thread would just turn into a big rationalism vs. empiricism argument and I don't think that ends up getting resolved...

[CβL]

In logical systems, there exist axioms. I'm pretty sure I can declare an axiom.

Furthermore, I should've clarified that I mean "objective facts". Facts which are embodied.

[Seldom]

there is no real content to the idea that saying there is no such thing as facts is a fact that is self subject because this is all thought and does not exist outside of thought

would you also say the answer to This question is no?

, the numbers do not exist, no where in nature is there actually math, this is why Einstein said that math is approximate science, not an exact one.

i would be genuinely surprised if Einstein said maths was an approximate science. have some faith man, of course mathematics exist outside thought. i don't mean this in a Platonic sense, surely you have heard of the laws of motion, the fobonacci sequence, the golden ratio, the huge amount of work on fractals in nature - mathematical constants govern all motion, which is to say everything. you could i suppose say the arbitrary signs which people assign to units are only in the mind, but that's just the same as saying words are not the things that words stand for. 'the map is not the terrain' type stuff. a child can tell you that.

the things to which those arbitrary signs corrospond, and the laws which govern the relations of change among them, do indeed exist. to say they don't is the same as saying all entities that signs refer to don't exist, which is solipsism. As Pythagoras says "number is the within of all things". Maths does exist.

Edited July 17, 2011 by humanzee

[Seldom]

/

Edited July 17, 2011 by humanzee

[CβL]

the huge amount of work on fractals in nature

Fractals only approximate finite patterns found in nature.

surely you have heard of the laws of motion

What? You mean the ones that only apply sometimes in certain situations? The ones that aren't accurate at all to fast objects, or small objects? What about chaotic systems?

you could i suppose say the arbitrary signs which people assign to units are only in the mind, but that's just the same as saying words are not the things that words stand for.

That's an incorrect analogy. Arbitrary signs to equations (i.e. symmetry), or arbitrary constants imply a 1:1 relation, where the mapping is continuous. While in the real world, mathematics does NOT map continuously to real phenomena. 'Words are not the things they stand for' is the analogy for 'equations are not the things they stand for.'

Look deeper before you say that the nature of things is deterministic and follows simplistic equations. It just so happens that maths is extremely powerful and flexible, which is why so much of nature appears to converge with a finite amount of mathematics, when in reality, it would be at least close to infinite equations.

Even if a large, but finite amount of equations could be used, once you began creating those equations, more and more - you begin to use the energy and information that the equations themselves describe. They are inseparable.

[Seldom]

this is interesting, i just before responding would say that i disagree only with the ideas put foreward by you, i'm not saying you're stupid, or trying to unsult you, only disagreeing with the ideas you put foreward.

once you began creating those equations, more and more - you begin to use the energy and information that the equations themselves describe. They are inseparable.

what are you saying here? this seems to me to be the same as saying 'the more people think about energy, the more energy that activity uses'. this has nothing to do with whether maths exists independant of thought. the point was that it's not leap to say divisable objects exist independant of thought, nor is it a leap to say the principals governing the relations of change between them are equally independent of thought.

i think the difference between my position and yours is the difference in whether mathematics is something which is discovered or invented. my point would be the world simply isn't just some unpredictable clamour of motion and progressive differentiation. no one is saying the first law of motion applies to subatomic phenomena or explains chaos. that's absurd man come on. the reality is that it does adequately describe certain phenomena within the universe. it's undeniable. it isn't ubuquitesly applicable, or all encompassing of corse, but no one claims it is. it's inaplicability to phenomena it's no longer meant to explain has nothing to do with whether maths exists or not.

what do you mean about a mathematical description of reality being 'at least close to infinite equations'?

Arbitrary signs to equations (i.e. symmetry), or arbitrary constants imply a 1:1 relation, where the mapping is continuous. While in the real world, mathematics does NOT map continuously to real phenomena

eh? what say you then to the accuracy with which it is possible to chart the trajectory of an object through space, the moon around the earth, for example? constants are never arbitrary, to say they are is to somehow misunderstand the nature of the way they're discovered (i.e not created) in the first place. what i'm saying is the language applied to them is arbitrary, call it what you will the meaning it holds is what is important.

no one assumes a 1:1 relation, the 'relation' of abstraction to reality, insofar as it's neccesary to say there is one, is one of identity, meaning sameness, thy both participate in the same reality. equations are not about representing reality, they are only useful insofar as they structure people's actions in the world effectively, meaning in as accurate a way as possible. As Badiou would say mathematics is ontology, nothing is more accurate that mathematics for the basic reason it's the language of the universe.