the L, on 08 February 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:
TheSearcher, on 08 February 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:
L they repeat their mantra, the same way you repeat yours. However you're both wrong and both right.
Yes, history is an actual science. (which is what you keep "mantraing" about)
However, history is part of those sciences, in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. (Which is what you accuse Jay and Everdred to "mantra" about)
One can draw a distinction, between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred.Having said this, nobody ever said that the proverbial line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly and evenly
And last but not least, historical claims are as much empirically verifiable than any other sort of claims.
So quite honestly, you ignore quite a few facts yourself. Mr; Pot, meet Mr. Kettle......
Searcher,
for my mantra I gave reasons. I didnt see them refuting those reasons.
I think that Im right and they wrong. This next is just speculation. I think that reason for our different opinion is because US citizens are tought differently.
Unless someone proove me that history isnt organized or that isnt knowledge I will think on history as science.
When I heard about Congress of historical methods/studies I will change my mind.
Whats the different between my and Jay view? Thats main question. What does it change? Perhaps fact that history is self correcting? also speculating.
Also sciences isnt just experiments.Judging on that we need to discover time machine and go in history then observe. We can done thought experiments although.
But to be good historian beside good expression and communication skills you need to have insights and travel in your mind to the past. You must use imagination in sense.
You must be able to do thought experiments. But what you can do in present is observation. Observation of many things related to history. Obesrvation is scientific method.
Ofcourse also you can study old manuscripts. And yes history use archaeology, geology, astronomy,...Same as physics use math.
What you mean by this: "historical claims are as much empirically verifiable than any other sort of claims."?
There was a time before scientists. Their meaning evolve. What is scientists? Whats historian then? Natural philosopher? Observer? Methodologist? Cmon.
L, by your post you prove that you did not understand one word of what I was saying. Also, I'm not a US citizen, just for the record.
You can't even see that I said" yes, history is a science and knowledge" You went off into one of your regular half cocked and silly ramblings, on how you are right and everybody else is wrong.
I've highlighted the relevant parts for you. And yes, you do need empirical proof, even as a historian, when you make a claim. Imagination is just not enough. If you cannot by some way or another prove that what you imagine happens to be correct, then it remains just a mental exercise, nothing even a theory, but an assumption or at best a hypothesis. That's what I mean by you also need empirical evidence.
Of course I know what is going to happen now, you are going to not understand, disagree and be arrogant about it. Thn say that we are all wrong and "imagine" a bit more.. At this point, the respect has run out, the way you answer other people......not even worth a comment anymore. Sadly dissapointing....
jmccr8, on 09 February 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:
Hi Searcher,
Good to see you back. I think that in part it has always been a political issue, the Inuit people did not have any representatives present when the treaties were signed.When it became more financially viable for gov't and industry to develop the resources,and of course the military and NORAD. When it came time to negotiate a treaty with the Inuit people that the gov't (and we know how frugal they are,haha)felt it would affect the treaties that had been originally signed with the Aboriginal people,so they were given a classification that isolated them as a distinct and different culture.
jmccr8
Glad to be back JMCCR8. And thanks for the explanation, I figured it was something like that.
1
