Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference is that in history (NOT archaeology
> - that's a subject somewhat closer to a science)
> the source material cannot be tested.
"Source material" isn't always text, though. When we find a certain knight from the 16th century rode a certain type of saddle, and then we find a saddle from that same time period, we have confirmation and clarification.
I bring this up because I am involved with an historical recreationist group and we do a LOT of this on a regular basis. Cuir Bouille, for example, is a process that I've spent some time researching and then testing. If I had the capacity, I could probably find examples from the time period and check the chemical composition against my final product. My work does what the texts SAY it should do, but I can backcheck the textual by examining the physical.
>
> In science what we test hypotheses on the basis of
> observation and experimentation - if X is true
> then Y will happen if we do Z. All stages can be
> done (and are sometimes actually done) in an
> objective manner.
Exactly.
>
> However, primary historical material HAS to be
> interpreted by the historian. For more recent
> history a sequence of checks is available because
> we can compare one source with a multiplicity of
> other sources to try and achieve some sort of
> concensus view.
Which, I would argue, is an objective measure.
> However, the further we go back
> the more difficult reconstructing the context of a
> source becomes.
I was thinking just the opposite. The further back we go, the more we rely upon objective, physical studies and cross-checking of dead languages/dead cultures. The emotional "link" to these cultures is diminished, and therefore the capacity to "interpret" them in light of our current experiences and teachings are equally lessened.
For example, as we look back on the French Revolution, we can see it much more objectively as we get more temporally separated from it, while things like WWII and the Iraq situation are much, much harder to quantify objectively.
The questions we are asking, though, also become more "physical" and less "psychological". For example, we aren't sitting around debating "who built the Eiffel Tower?"... but we WILL debate "Who built the pyramid at Meidum?"
> To take an often discussed topic,
> the Druids are mentioned in contemporary sources a
> handful of times. There is no archaeological
> evidence. there is, in fact, no objective primary
> evidence as those writing the sources belonged to
> a culture that interacted violently with those
> being written about. Any historian wishing to
> write about the Druids is going to have to decide
> how accurate the sources are, how biased they are,
> do they derive from observation, etc. etc. etc.
> These are all pretty much decisive decisions.
"decisive decisions"... straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, eh?
lol
Seriously, though. A good historian will take this topic, explain that there's little evidence, and then launch into speculations. Big deal. It's more like well-researched historical FICTION, rather than actual history. Yes, this does happen when we lack physical evidence of a group, but that doesn't mean we ALWAYS lack physical evidence of a group, or autobiographical writings, or other such records of activities and achievements. You can't lump all historical research together. I see you've pulled out archaeology, but I suggest there's a spectrum here where some things CAN and ARE being investigated scientifically, and therefore, the subject needs to be viewed as a science, not a ... (fill in the blank for non-science).
>
> The important thing is that, as long as the
> historians states the basis of his or her
> interpretation then this completely subjective
> view is valid history within the context of
> history as an academic subject.
It's a plausible speculation. It cannot be used as the basis for FURTHER theorizing, though. This is true of any field of scientific research. Until a way is found to test or measure something, it's existence/properties/tendencies are considered to be nothing more than plausible speculations. My friend the chemist would agree with that, I think.
>
> Science is NOT the only forensically based system
> of deriving knowledge.
No, but it is the way the subject is researched, so why bother delineating between this field and other fields just because of.... well, I don't really know why. Maybe that's why we end up in this discussion so frequently.
Good talking with you.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
