Originally Posted by CTD
Originally Posted by egan
Originally Posted by CTD
I would like to point out that "learning from history" is essentially the same thing as employing the "scientific method".

How do we know what happens when alcohol is prohibited? The experiment's been done. It's found in history. How do we know why governments erect walls, or ban weapons? These experiments have been done, and the results can be found in history.


Well it's not an exact parallel. The scientific method is definitely more accurate than history. The fact that historical records can be tampered with notwithstanding, there's also the numerous factors of any given scenario which one must take into account. What happens when alcohol is prohibited? We can see what happens when it's prohibited in the United States during a certain era but that does not mean prohibiting alcohol will produce the same affect each and every time. Conversely, in the realm of science combining two chemicals together will always produce the same effect. Legalizing marijuana, for example, may work in some countries and not in others. Unfortunately, it's just not as cut and dry as the scientific method. Cultural and geographical factors will play a large part in what works in one place and not in another. The new implementation of a certain law may be wildly successful in one region of the globe and yet result in disastrous consequences in another. It's not as simple as carbon dioxide + water = glucose + oxygen.
I disagree. Some subjects can be understood to a higher degree of precision; so what?

Why can't meteorology tell me what the exact temperature, humidity and precipitation will be a year from today? Medical science can be fairly imprecise as well. Even your chemistry example depends on temperature & pressure considerations.

And in case you haven't read the earlier parts of the thread, I should point out that you wouldn't even have other sciences without history. One has to have reliable reports of observations and experiments, and these must come to us via history unless we witness them ourselves.


I still don't think there's much to compare between using history as evidence as there is using science. There is an infinite number of facts about the universe a 7th grader can prove in a laboratory at school; history books are subject to impurity - after all, you'd have to trust what's been written in order to know it's factual in the first place. And even if you can get past that issue, there's still the fact that it cannot be tested and verified time and time again.

Here's a wonderful quote I dug up on the subject smile

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky
There is a noticeable general difference between the sciences and mathematics on the one hand, and the humanities and social sciences on the other. It's a first approximation, but one that is real. In the former, the factors of integrity tend to dominate more over the factors of ideology. It's not that scientists are more honest people. It's just that nature is a harsh taskmaster. You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like, and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry, and it'll be refuted tomorrow.


Shalom!