User:Truc Ha:Sandbox
From da Vinci Concept
Hello JoRye,
Good to see you on the site again, and I like the ambitiousness of your project. Certainly, as you suggest, an understanding of history informs our lives and gives us the opportunity to learn without going through the pain and bloodshed of other times. Let's raise the stakes though; if we could somehow understand history so well that we could direct how the future will play out, we could 1) assure mankind's existence through war and upheaval in the future and 2) preserve valuable cultural knowledge so that future generations would be able to build instead of being caught up in the necessities of re-building technology. These two goals are exemplified in science fiction via the efforts of Issac Asimov's character Hari Seldon and Frank Herbert's Leto Atreides II.
However, let us debate a few points.
Contents |
Major points
The Goal of Studying the Science of History
You say that you are embarking on "a years long investigation into human history, mostly centered around European."
I have found that a well-crafted question is required in order for the process of the scientific method to generate usable discoveries. So what are your questions? A "truthful understanding of history" is too vague to be servicable. I would hate for us to embark upon "a lifetime study" with nothing new to report in the end. Crafting solid, testable questions will go hand in hand with crafting "big" questions to produce results.
You discuss the asking of questions, though the stated advantages of "best questions" are rather vague. Furthermore, certain "occurrences" do deserve to be questioned in terms of whether they happened or not: for example, did the Greeks "forget" their language; I don't think so.
In contrast to simply documenting the past events and past motivations, let us explore the past with an eye to servicing the future in a specific way. Creating questions that pertain to today's problems will give us insight into both the past and the present.
As an aside, I prefer the verb "craft" to "find" in that it describes the process of choosing questions better.
Why continue the "Euro-centric" mistake
A brief retort: Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, and also his critics. ISBN 0393317552
A longer discussion: I'm rather disappointed that you're defining "American" as someone of European descent, and the European experience as representative of the rest of the world. Those of us who don't have a speck of European genetics to claim, are our stories less worthy of consideration? Those of us who identify more with the non-European portions of our heritage--Korean, Native American, Aleut, Peruvian, Persian--we have other stories that resonate with us. It is contradictory for you to state "that the textbook account of history in school is highly unsatisfactory, and full of prejudice as well", and then commit the same misdemeanor.
I would understand if you are exploring the life of these two European historical figures as a personal study. If so, then it should be a subheading somewhere. By putting Columbus as a major portion of the introductory post to the "Science of History" project, you definitely give the whole project a European, even Christian vibe. I, for one, would be wary of a science of history from a point of view that embraces a culture known for the Spanish Inquisition. It could easy come to justify a neo-Nazi viewpoint.
Truth is not subjective; opinions are not self-evident
You stated: "Many would revolt against this idea, "How can you impose your view of history as the truth?" "I don't plan to," I would respond. Nobody can deny that the Ancient Greek culture of Solon and the Pythagoreans was a much more developed culture than that of the Persian Empire which attempted to crush them."
I view different interpretations of historical data as similar to the different views of a play you can get in a proscenium stage with thrust. If you've ever watched a production from the worst seats in the house, as I have, you know that you've seen parts of the play but have missed significant portions of the acting. Similarly, there can be many views of an event in history, some of which are obstructed due to ideological bias or ignorance. These may be heard and discarded.
Remember the difference between a fact and an opinion. The viewpoint (however well-founded) is not the play. That the world exists and is round is a fact verifiable by multiple independent observations. That global warming is due to human industrial exhaust is a theory still in need of proof. That Caucasian Americans are "superior" to Native Americans is an opinion.
Minor points
History is not science
There are several definitions of "history" in the dictionaries. From reading your post, it seems you are using the definition of history as the events of the past, though in this initial use, it seems that you are using the definition of history as the study of the events of the past: "History is a science that is for the most part, viewed through opinions and prejudices." As you are discussing science, a process of study, as applied to history, please choose a definition and stick to it.
Thanks for spell checking
Your writing is improving in terms of coherency. Remember to check for spelling mistakes such as "there" used in place of "their".
