No Big Bang

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_
(I can’t seem to remember the term, I think its used in physics too, for describing something in great detail and but having no understanding as to why it is so).

'By rote' may be the expression you are after.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Horse****. I know history PhD candidates. Most of those studying American history are completely outclassed in their knowledge of European history (outside of a few, very specialised subjects where European events intruded on American history) by me, a rank amateur who has read a number of works on European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the present day. I knew one PhD candidate in history who had literally never taken a single European history course, and who would never need to take one (either as an undergrad or a graduate student)

This is not said to insult history students. The nature of the discipline promotes this type of isolated knowledge. And coming from this background is the reason why Mr Fun thinks that it should be possible to break off a chunk of physics and learn it in isolation.

That's probablly the most appalling thing (true or false) that I will read today.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


Most historians memorize history and that’s what I despise, they offer only descriptions
(I can’t seem to remember the term, I think its used in physics too, for describing something in great detail and but having no understanding as to why it is so).
This may be hard to understand but there is beauty in the flow of history and the way connections are made among civilizations, you see influences can reach a country century’s after the parent culture has died, like the light of long dead stars reaching us. And history is like the sea in that respect; there are wrinkles and tiny chaotic waves on the surface, which change rapidly but the undercurrent stays strong. Its useless to memorize the waves its only useful to recognize the currents and those currents are global.
A holistic view is difficult to achieve but is the only one that gives any practical application to history, the only one which can make predictions and the only one which can help to reduce the horrible subjectivity of the matter (time helps, but also makes the material evidence scarcer).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_

A holistic view is difficult to achieve but is the only one that gives any practical application to history, the only one which can make predictions

I did not take up history as a profession because I wanted to become a fortune teller.

History has its relevancy to today's world, and I have an interest in history in so far as I can understand more clearly contemporary issues/problems, and help others better understand such things.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Geronimo
That's probablly the most appalling thing (true or false) that I will read today.

*shrug* I would tend to agree but, true or false, it's not necessarily indicative of wider trends within the subject of history. KH might like to make such a generalization, but we don't really know if he's qualified to do that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael


*shrug* I would tend to agree but, true or false, it's not necessarily indicative of wider trends within the subject of history. KH might like to make such a generalization, but we don't really know if he's qualified to do that.

False. These students represent a wide variety of undergraduate backgrounds (in terms of school attended). Graduate, not so much, but I was told that it was the same everywhere.

Knowing the course requirements at a half-dozen major universities/colleges does allow me to make some significant generalisations as to what the average student can be expected to learn. People generally learn what is asked of them.

Ask Mr Fun, an American History specialist, how many classes in European history he was required to take. No insult to him, but I almost certainly know more about it than he does. This is not because he's stupid, or lazy, or ignorant as somebody with a graduate degree in history; it simply means that historians have, for a very long time, specialised from an early point in their education. History is not built the way you think it is. Given the detail with which historians learn their given period/area, it is unsurprising.

[KrazyHorse]

This may be hard to understand but there is beauty in the flow of history and the way connections are made among civilizations, you see influences can reach a country century’s after the parent culture has died, like the light of long dead stars reaching us.

Is there any particular reason you felt like inflicting this insipid simile upon us?

[KrazyHorse]

The examples given allow a different interpretation: both the American Civil War and Asian history can be viewed as instances of structural developments that adher to a logic higher than the intra-cultural interpretations we're used to.

History doesn't follow logic precisely. Those who think it does are generally laughed out of the academic world. As far as we can see, there are no sweeping generalisations to be made. There is no general theory to unite the disparate elements in human history. Anybody who claims to have found one is generally a crank who chooses to oversimplify the situation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The examples given allow a different interpretation: both the American Civil War and Asian history can be viewed as instances of structural developments that adher to a logic higher than the intra-cultural interpretations we're used to.

History doesn't follow logic precisely. Those who think it does are generally laughed out of the academic world. As far as we can see, there are no sweeping generalisations to be made. There is no general theory to unite the disparate elements in human history. Anybody who claims to have found one is generally a crank who chooses to oversimplify the situation.

Marxists weren't really cranks. They were just wrong.

Adolf Hitler on the other hand certainly should have been nothing more than a crank but someone managed to become far more dangerous than that.

These are two examples of non-cranks who contrived general 'theories' to unite the disparate elements in human history.

There does seem to be an uncomfortable association with harmful ideologies and formulations of general theories that try to unite all the elements in human history.

[KrazyHorse]

Look, it's like literary analysis.

You can say "I'm a feminist critic" which means that you follow some "feminist" methodology to interpret every work of literature.

You draw a lot of conclusions that way. Doesn't mean you'll be right. Same with saying "I'm going to take a Marxist view of history". It might shed some sort of understanding on the situation (after all, materialism is going to be a fundamental driver for human actions), but it doesn't tell the whole story. Learning about Asian history does not let you derive American history. Hell, learning about Japanese history doesn't let you derive Chinese history.

History is a topic based subject precisely because there is no large, all-encompassing methodology which allows you to get away with not knowing all the details.

Hell, even astrophysics is topics-based compared to physics. That's why astrophysicists are quite often horrible physicists. And history has nowhere near the explicative or predictive power of astrophysics.

In terms of information, history is a much larger subject than physics. There are hundreds or thousands times more facts that you have to know before you can claim to understand anything. Physics, on the other hand, is simple. There are very few pieces of information that you need. It's their correct application which is difficult. We distill the millions of experimental measurements and observations into a very small set of equations and methodologies. I have a horrible memory, but I don't need a good one. I can always rederive it all when I need it.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
False.

Interesting that I can be proven wrong when my post didn't even state a conclusion.

These students represent a wide variety of undergraduate backgrounds (in terms of school attended). Graduate, not so much, but I was told that it was the same everywhere.

Knowing the course requirements at a half-dozen major universities/colleges does allow me to make some significant generalisations as to what the average student can be expected to learn. People generally learn what is asked of them.

Now this is information that would allow me to come closer to a conclusion. I know it now. This means we might know that you might be qualified.

History is not built the way you think it is.

Oh, it's not? Wait. What way do I think it's built?

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry, got you confused with burcarj...whatever.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Ask Mr Fun, an American History specialist, how many classes in European history he was required to take. No insult to him, but I almost certainly know more about it than he does. This is not because he's stupid, or lazy, or ignorant as somebody with a graduate degree in history; it simply means that historians have, for a very long time, specialised from an early point in their education. History is not built the way you think it is. Given the detail with which historians learn their given period/area, it is unsurprising.

I don't find this post of yours offensive -- I understand what you're saying.

While in graduate school, my minor field in history was European history. Altogther, I took three European courses (Enlightenment Europe, medieval Europe, and nineteenth century Europe, focusing on ideological developments). One course was purely a historiography course, and then all the rest were in my major field of history -- American history. And within my major field, I have a strong, particular interest in Civil War and Reconstruction.

Does not mean that I depreciate any other areas of study in history, or that I find other areas boring. European, African, Asian, or other fields in history can be fascinating in their own right -- but instead of overwhelming myself by reaching towards the unrealistic ideal of becoming an expert in everything in history, I chose an area where I have a passionate interest already.

[MrFun]

What did annoy me though, is that BuRjaCi thinks that the pratical application of history is through fortune telling.

[Geronimo]

Specialize away!

But history students should be required to have a general overview of the history of every major region of the world such that there aren't any civilizations whose history is a total opaque mystery to them.