• Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
Yes
100%
[ 7 ]
No
0%
[ 0 ]
Total Votes : 7
Author
Message
edeangelis
Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 25
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:28 am Post subject: Philosophies and Methodologies of Science and History
• Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
After you answer, think about voting in the poll, too. =]
good luck!
Yes. Philosophies and methodologies are always changing because of variables, and if they didn't work together that would be counter intuitive. A philosophy is the thought behind something, and the methodology is the procedure, or way that it is done. If the way that something is done doesn't have a direct relationship with why it's being done, then the whole process is pointless.
I also believe that they are constantly pushing against eachother, and challenging eachother to make progress. When something doesn't line up, they push against eachother to find the most objective possible truth.
Yes, because cause and effect and progression play a major role in both science and history. They also push against each other in analysis- history analyzes WHY cause, effect, and progression happen, and science analyzes HOW cause, effect, and progression occur.
The philosophies of science and history were changing at this point in time. This was probably because science was changing more dramatically, and discoveries were being made that were difficult for society to accept. The biggest difference between science at this time and science before was this new science's defiance of religion, a subject that has always been tied to history. There used to be a strong connection between science and religion, but now they were becoming separated. As new theories began to emerge, like Darwin's theory of evolution, that could not be explained by the church, science turned against religion, and began to distance itself from history.
Now, science and history are not even thought of as similar subjects. Both have grown more advanced with technology, and by doing so, they become separated, and we have forgotten that they frequently coincide. I think it was Tasha (sorry and correct me if I'm wrong) who said during the seminar that "a discovery is historic.' The discoveries that are made in science either correct and enhance earlier historical records, or "make history," and are remembered by future historians.
One question that I'd like to hear you guys' thoughts on; Do you think that history and science should be integrated more often?
Yes... science and history both are coming from a place of change/progress. Evolution theories in science proves that species change over time. Historically, philosophers can see that societies evolve and change over time. Methodically, history and science both come from more of a factual basis now, but also both diverge into philosophical analysis. In history, we look for causes and patterns that could be considered subjective. In science, we have theories that are sometimes accepted as truths, but are not necessarily completely arguable or based solely from fact.
Yes... science and history both are coming from a place of change/progress. Evolution theories in science proves that species change over time. Historically, philosophers can see that societies evolve and change over time. Methodically, history and science both come from more of a factual basis now, but also both diverge into philosophical analysis. In history, we look for causes and patterns that could be considered subjective. In science, we have theories that are sometimes accepted as truths, but are not necessarily completely arguable or based solely from fact.
abby and celina both made fantastic points. and i'll try to say something that isnt just reiteration. yes, science and history, not to mention their methodologies and philosophies, are changing in a similar way. Both science and history (the disciplines) are being examined and revised constantly to try and achieve some sort of perfect science/history. and as celina said, history is more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. and both are working towards doing one thing: they want to tell the TRUTH. truth plays such an enormous part in both disciplines that its no wonder our third final project question is "what is truth?" unfortunately the truth from hundreds of years ago is always foggy, and we will never truly achieve the perfect methodologies of science and history, because the only way to know the truth without any shadow of doubt is through yet another one of our big concepts: experience. man this class rocks.
to try to answer the abby's question.....yes and no. history and science are integrated so often already, but as little h and little s. any scientific discovery is historic. some of the most famous historical names are famous because of their scientific discoveries. einstein, ben franklin, isaac netwon, galileo. however, as a discipline, they are not often paired together. but if celina is right, and i agree with her, and cause and effect play a huge part in both disciplines, then they SHOULD be integrated more often.
i wish i had more to say on this.....but i have not wrapped my mind fully around any one concept we've learned in this class, and science, history, and truth, are the biggest concepts of all. so good luck with all this.
Yes. Along with the change in the philosophies of science (Darwin), you also see philosophies in history change (Marx and Turner). But what is extraordinary is the whole philosophy of "social sciences." Though Kant and Hegel talked about the dignity of man, Marx and Turner go deeper in their analysis on human nature and society. This is huge in history because they analyzed the past and tried looking into the future of social and economic classes. What's interesting, and this was mentioned in class, was that Marx and Turner were different on how classes would change over time.
Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
Honestly, I know this will just be a repetition the insightful things other people have already said, but I don't have a new spin on anything.
Yes. As I know at least I found in my loop writing, science and history are SUCH similar disciplines. In the time period we're reading about, scienve and history seem to be changing, together, in three or so ways. 1) Truly cultivating the art of ... PREDICTION.... by using the past as a jumping off point. So, being able to look at the past analytically and critically. (I think its important to remember that we're finally starting to have ENOUGH of a past for it to be useful to us... in the 1800's it had certainly been long enough since people starting writing this stuff down to see some patterns)
2) History and science (at least with marx, darwin and turner) are being pretty empirical, basing things off of as much experience as they can.
3) Everyone is beginning to truly believe that the future bring inevitable progress, change and identity.** By nature.
** the problem I'm having with all this is how vague those words are... I feel like I don't know what history/science/darwin/marx/turner is REALLY seeing in the future. Perfection? the never ending growth towards perfection? identity? what does this all mean?
Philosophies and methodologies are absolutely related. A belief, or philosophy, effects the methodology of any given subject. For example, if your philosophy is 'positive reinforcement' then you give your dog a treat when it is good instead of hitting it when it is bad. This shows the relation between the two.
The philosophies and methodologies of science and history are changing. As are as science goes, we use different methodologies and philosophies in medicine, farming, architecture, art, ect. However, there are many old philosophies and methodologies that are still used today. They are sometimes ignored, but mainly just elaborated on. History is similar. The way we record history, teach history, and collect evidence is more elaborate, more advanced and often very different than it used to be. However there are some key philosophies and methodologies that are used all the time in the field. These changes are compatible. Sometimes old philosophies and methodologies are used nowadays, and sometimes they aren't. Either way is fine, there is no one right philosophy or method for any one thing. There is room for variety.
Yes they are changing in ways that are compatible. As the philosophies and methodologies behind each discipline grow and change, they inherently change and grow to fit with each other because History and Science are so intertwined.
and to Abby's question: I do think that Science and History should be integrated more. While a scientific discovery is historic, it really helps to understand what the real significance and reaction to scientific discoveries was by looking at how the thinkers of the time that is being studied perceived science, and how it did or did not support the ideas of the time.
Sorry this is late- I kept entering my email address and email password instead of my forum username/password, and couldn't post until I figured it out. Oh, brain at 10:55pm, why do you torture me so?
So some thoughts: Playing off of what AJ said, I think the philosophies and methodologies of science and history were changing in ways that are compatible- but perhaps with so much overlap that the disciplines were beginning to step on each other’s toes. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the disciplines- I’m all for integrated study- but there’s a boundary-blur that makes it very hard to distinguish science from history amidst a blur of big words like “CHANGE!”, “TRUTH!”, “PROGRESS!”, and “DISCOVERY”! It feels like a perverse mix of an ad for the Museum of Science and pro-Obama posters. So I’m curious to figure out, over the next few readings, where the boundaries of history and science stand, post-1850.
Incidentally, I loved Celina’s note on history=why/science=how. It sounds spot-on, and remarkably straightforward.
The idea that Turner saw no “final destination” for society, but Marx (a pupil of Hegel’s) did was pretty weird. I would have thought that the Hegelian worldview supported shifting government and society, and certainly not have advocated a self-governing proletariat. Similarly, it kinda seemed like Darwin and some of his contemporaries were missing each other’s points.
Yes I do beleive that history and science are similar as are their philosphies and methodologies. However these similarities can only been seen in certain examples. For instance within the methodology of science analysis is taken from experiments while in history analysis comes from primary and secondary sources. Both of these are pretty much empirical sources, which is where the similarity is. I think the big difference between these two disciplines are subjects that they take into account. Science analyses the natural world as specimens to be dissected, while history takes the population of a city and analyses the change that has taken place in their political system.
i think that science elevates the causality of history to the necessity of science. in this way they both rely on each other. In order to figure out how history is changing we need science. In order to figure out how science is changing we need history. But if and when science evolves to its full capacity and the root of every expression of change has been identified, then history will become irrelevant and we will have nothing left to learn from it. Once the past no longer belongs to history it will belong to science, and it will no longer belong to the continuum of time as we no it. That is to say that the past will become indistinguishable from the future, as the unknown which had separated them will be gone.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
