Forums → WEPR → Is The Study of History a Worthwhile Pursuit?

44	10862

offline

Hypermnestra

26,390 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 2:38am UTC

So Sirnoobalot and I had this conversation(more like an ongoing debate, actually) about whether or not history/archaeology/paleontology is useful. I'm posting this here because it's a more fitting forum than posting it alongside RPG replies. In addition, I would like to see what some other people think of it. I'll just post our prior communications on here as well, so you can sort of see what kind of stuff I'm talking about.
I mean...I get that knowing about the past is nice and all, "if you don't learn from the past you'll repeat it" yada yada yada but if we've already got assault rifles who cares if our ancestors used stone spears and we found a bunch of them(just an example)? I just feel like history is such a waste! What could we accomplish if intelligent, dedicated people like Gertrude Bell, Sir Arthur Evans, Hiram Bingham, etc. had set their minds to the field of math or of science instead of history!?
Let me clarify my previous statement: I respect their intelligence, but not their accomplishments. It's like this:
Say nobody knew who first discovered penicillin, and there are two medical students. One of them decides he's gonna go into the HISTORY of medicine, and the other one decides she's gonna go into actual medicine. So the first student discovers that, hey, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin! Meanwhile, the second student discovers a new antibiotic that can take out bacteria that's developed a resistance to penicillin. As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work.

Oh my, please tell me 1 thing Math has directly done to improve the overall quality of life for humans.

Math is the foundation for chemistry, architecture, engineering, physics, biology, technology, and more things than I could shake a proverbial stick at!
The computer you're typing on right now...it wouldn't be there if not for math.
That famous scientific equation, e = mc^2? Gee, why does that look so much like algebra?
Ever wondered why your house doesn't fall down every time the wind blows? Geometry!
You say that science is more important, and I agree in principle. But without math, there would be no science. You laugh, but I guarantee you, you're going to have a hard ****ing time finding a chemist, engineer, architect, technician, etc. who's bad at math.

Putting a universal law into mathematical terms.
I was deploring what a mathematician does himself to improve society, not what the other fields use math for.
And you keep on using how mathematics has indirectly helped humans, while I happened to say directly

You're splitting hairs of bull****. But I'll indulge you.
The ability to count(very simple math indeed!) was a major factor in the creation of modern society. The barter system(i.e. I give you 1 chicken for 2 gallons of milk) was unreliable and impossible to implement on a large scale since people all valued different items differently. It only worked on a case-to-case basis. But the ability to count gave us the ability to use currency. Now we can have a set amount of $$ which is worth a set price. This was incredibly important to the foundation of society since people could trade with other people who had a common currency.
And computers are a direct contribution of math. So is mass production and economics.
And nearly all electronic technology, especially computers, is a direct contribution of math, thank you. The ALU(Arithmetic Logic Unit) is the heart of CPUs, GPUs, microprocessors, and more. Computers, when grossly simplified for the sake of argument, are just machines that take a bunch of signals, translate them into numbers, and use those numbers to perform a function. Bitwise logic operations, integer arithmetic operations, and bit-shifting operations are what allow computers to run, and in case you didn't notice, that's math.
Also, if you deplore something that means you hate it, are repulsed/disgusted by it, etc.

Every single one of those is a mathematician figuring out how something works and then someone else applying it to improve society which I believe is indirect contribution. The only exception to that would be a computer, which I will agree on.
The majority of math, when applied to the real world and especially science, is simply putting known aspects of the universe( example: constant of gravity or the weight of an atom) into mathematical terms so the human mind may more easily comprehend and use it. An example of this is engineering: It's not like mathematics independently created engineering, it made the engineer's job easier by making him more easily understand pre-established constants of the universe and apply it into, say, building a house.

So you're saying that a computer isn't a good enough contribution? If the entirety of math had built up to the internet, to the computer, to the cell phone, etc. then I would say that's good enough. Now tell me one way that an archae/paleontologist has helped humanity in their studies. And please don't say that they have made "cultural" contributions or "they discovered a bunch of gold and treasure".
Also, EVERY single contribution EVER to ANY field of ANYTHING is someone figuring something out, then someone else building on it. I swear. Take the work of Anton van Leeuwenhoek for example, he discovered bacteria. Did he do anything with this knowledge? No, not really. BUT he wrote it down and then other people like Joseph Lister, Robert Koch, and Louis Pasteur took Leeuwenhoek's discovery of bacteria, and built upon it by saying that "Hey, those little microscopic creatures cause disease!" and then finding ways to combat said creatures and said disease. I would say that, yes, Anton van Leeuwenhoek indirectly contributed to the creation of antibiotics and antiseptics. But just because his involvement was indirect doesn't mean he deserves none of the credit. If not for his work, none of the other scientists/doctors would have been able to do what they did. Just because something is an indirect contribution does not mean in any way that you can disregard it.

So should we throw away the history of Earth and the evolution of the homo sapien because it isn't helping humanly studies?
And if you really wanted to be technical, human fossils disprove creation and support evolution..... Is evolution a legitimate study topic?
Touche, except mathematics as a field of study IS simplifying the universe into human ideas LIKE numbers and equations, in other words 'figuring something out'.

I never said we should throw it away. It's too late for that. All I said was that it would have been much better if great minds like Darwin had chosen to go into the field of medicine, science, mathematics, etc. than history. It would have been better for humanity. I would rather have a cure for malaria, or a solution to the energy crisis, or whatever, than the skeleton of a brand-new undiscovered species of dinosaur.
As far as I can tell, the theory of evolution has not benefited humanity in any way. So no. It has not improved the quality of life, and thus is inferior to other fields of study.
And before you mention religious extremism, religious extremists ignore the evidence. It wouldn't matter if we proved evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc. beyond any shadow of a doubt, there would still be pigheaded creationists who ignored the proof. Hell, for that matter, it wouldn't make a difference if God himself appeared on Earth in all his paradisiacal glory, there would still be pigheaded atheists who ignored the proof too! Trying to disprove creationism is a battle that cannot be won, and in fact it's one of the sorer points for me. Think of what Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or hell, any of those "Four Horsemen" with amazing scientific minds or even the creationists, could have done if they'd applied that intelligence to trying to improve quality of life for humanity instead of trying to convert people to a belief(or lack thereof) that will do nothing for them.

Oh, so darwin should've been a doctor? Would revolution of the human mindset count as an achievement? In proposing natural selection, Darwin started the trickle that would become the flood of people moving away from creationism and to more logical theories; wwhat would happen if we still believed that maggots spontaneously spawned inside garbage and women got pregnant with the afternoon breeze? (the latter part just an example than a true belief)

Creationism does not mean ignorance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't mention anything about any of that(maggots, breeze, etc.). And many, many of the greatest scientists were religious: Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Mendel(who was actually a monk!), Pasteur, Planck....

So, yeah. What's your take on any of this? Also, a thread for Noob and I to continue our debate somewhere that it's actually welcome xD

So Sirnoobalot and I had this conversation(more like an ongoing debate, actually) about whether or not history/archaeology/paleontology is useful. I'm posting this here because it's a more fitting forum than posting it alongside RPG replies. In addition, I would like to see what some other people think of it. I'll just post our prior communications on here as well, so you can sort of see what kind of stuff I'm talking about. \r\nI mean...I get that knowing about the past is nice and all, "if you don't learn from the past you'll repeat it" yada yada yada but if we've already got assault rifles who cares if our ancestors used stone spears and we found a bunch of them(just an example)? I just feel like history is such a waste! What could we accomplish if intelligent, dedicated people like Gertrude Bell, Sir Arthur Evans, Hiram Bingham, etc. had set their minds to the field of math or of science instead of history!?\r\nLet me clarify my previous statement: I respect their intelligence, but not their accomplishments. It's like this:\r\nSay nobody knew who first discovered penicillin, and there are two medical students. One of them decides he's gonna go into the HISTORY of medicine, and the other one decides she's gonna go into actual medicine. So the first student discovers that, hey, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin! Meanwhile, the second student discovers a new antibiotic that can take out bacteria that's developed a resistance to penicillin. As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work. \r\n\r\nOh my, please tell me 1 thing Math has directly done to improve the overall quality of life for humans.\r\n\r\nMath is the foundation for chemistry, architecture, engineering, physics, biology, technology, and more things than I could shake a proverbial stick at!\r\nThe computer you're typing on right now...it wouldn't be there if not for math.\r\nThat famous scientific equation, e = mc^2? Gee, why does that look so much like algebra?\r\nEver wondered why your house doesn't fall down every time the wind blows? Geometry!\r\nYou say that science is more important, and I agree in principle. But without math, there would be no science. You laugh, but I guarantee you, you're going to have a hard ****ing time finding a chemist, engineer, architect, technician, etc. who's bad at math. \r\n\r\nPutting a universal law into mathematical terms.\r\nI was deploring what a mathematician does himself to improve society, not what the other fields use math for.\r\nAnd you keep on using how mathematics has indirectly helped humans, while I happened to say directly\r\n\r\nYou're splitting hairs of bull****. But I'll indulge you.\r\nThe ability to count(very simple math indeed!) was a major factor in the creation of modern society. The barter system(i.e. I give you 1 chicken for 2 gallons of milk) was unreliable and impossible to implement on a large scale since people all valued different items differently. It only worked on a case-to-case basis. But the ability to count gave us the ability to use currency. Now we can have a set amount of $$ which is worth a set price. This was incredibly important to the foundation of society since people could trade with other people who had a common currency.\r\nAnd computers are a direct contribution of math. So is mass production and economics.\r\nAnd nearly all electronic technology, especially computers, is a direct contribution of math, thank you. The ALU(Arithmetic Logic Unit) is the heart of CPUs, GPUs, microprocessors, and more. Computers, when grossly simplified for the sake of argument, are just machines that take a bunch of signals, translate them into numbers, and use those numbers to perform a function. Bitwise logic operations, integer arithmetic operations, and bit-shifting operations are what allow computers to run, and in case you didn't notice, that's math. \r\nAlso, if you deplore something that means you hate it, are repulsed/disgusted by it, etc.\r\n\r\nEvery single one of those is a mathematician figuring out how something works and then someone else applying it to improve society which I believe is indirect contribution. The only exception to that would be a computer, which I will agree on.\r\nThe majority of math, when applied to the real world and especially science, is simply putting known aspects of the universe( example: constant of gravity or the weight of an atom) into mathematical terms so the human mind may more easily comprehend and use it. An example of this is engineering: It's not like mathematics independently created engineering, it made the engineer's job easier by making him more easily understand pre-established constants of the universe and apply it into, say, building a house.\r\n\r\nSo you're saying that a computer isn't a good enough contribution? If the entirety of math had built up to the internet, to the computer, to the cell phone, etc. then I would say that's good enough. Now tell me one way that an archae/paleontologist has helped humanity in their studies. And please don't say that they have made "cultural" contributions or "they discovered a bunch of gold and treasure".\r\nAlso, EVERY single contribution EVER to ANY field of ANYTHING is someone figuring something out, then someone else building on it. I swear. Take the work of Anton van Leeuwenhoek for example, he discovered bacteria. Did he do anything with this knowledge? No, not really. BUT he wrote it down and then other people like Joseph Lister, Robert Koch, and Louis Pasteur took Leeuwenhoek's discovery of bacteria, and built upon it by saying that "Hey, those little microscopic creatures cause disease!" and then finding ways to combat said creatures and said disease. I would say that, yes, Anton van Leeuwenhoek indirectly contributed to the creation of antibiotics and antiseptics. But just because his involvement was indirect doesn't mean he deserves none of the credit. If not for his work, none of the other scientists/doctors would have been able to do what they did. Just because something is an indirect contribution does not mean in any way that you can disregard it. \r\n\r\nSo should we throw away the history of Earth and the evolution of the homo sapien because it isn't helping humanly studies?\r\nAnd if you really wanted to be technical, human fossils disprove creation and support evolution..... Is evolution a legitimate study topic?\r\nTouche, except mathematics as a field of study IS simplifying the universe into human ideas LIKE numbers and equations, in other words 'figuring something out'.\r\n\r\nI never said we should throw it away. It's too late for that. All I said was that it would have been much better if great minds like Darwin had chosen to go into the field of medicine, science, mathematics, etc. than history. It would have been better for humanity. I would rather have a cure for malaria, or a solution to the energy crisis, or whatever, than the skeleton of a brand-new undiscovered species of dinosaur. \r\nAs far as I can tell, the theory of evolution has not benefited humanity in any way. So no. It has not improved the quality of life, and thus is inferior to other fields of study.\r\nAnd before you mention religious extremism, religious extremists ignore the evidence. It wouldn't matter if we proved evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc. beyond any shadow of a doubt, there would still be pigheaded creationists who ignored the proof. Hell, for that matter, it wouldn't make a difference if God himself appeared on Earth in all his paradisiacal glory, there would still be pigheaded atheists who ignored the proof too! Trying to disprove creationism is a battle that cannot be won, and in fact it's one of the sorer points for me. Think of what Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or hell, any of those "Four Horsemen" with amazing scientific minds or even the creationists, could have done if they'd applied that intelligence to trying to improve quality of life for humanity instead of trying to convert people to a belief(or lack thereof) that will do nothing for them.\r\n\r\nOh, so darwin should've been a doctor? Would revolution of the human mindset count as an achievement? In proposing natural selection, Darwin started the trickle that would become the flood of people moving away from creationism and to more logical theories; wwhat would happen if we still believed that maggots spontaneously spawned inside garbage and women got pregnant with the afternoon breeze? (the latter part just an example than a true belief)\r\n\r\nCreationism does not mean ignorance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't mention anything about any of that(maggots, breeze, etc.). And many, many of the greatest scientists were religious: Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Mendel(who was actually a monk!), Pasteur, Planck....\r\n\r\nSo, yeah. What's your take on any of this? Also, a thread for Noob and I to continue our debate somewhere that it's actually welcome xD

44 Replies

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 8:21am UTC

Yes it is.

Simply put some of us aren't built for science, we don't have the inquisitiveness or the rational thinking needed for math and science. Which kind of debunks your entire ''Studying-Science-And-Discovering-Penicillin-Instead-Of-History'' argument. Putting people who are more inclined towards the social sciences in labs will simply backfire.

Again, one of the arguments that people have spoken for history is that because it allows us to consider what has happened and learnt from it. Yes it is a valid point, but it is rather minor. Also, to anyone who says history repeats itself, false.

Now, the one of the arguments against people studying history is that worlds of the past have vanished, the lessons of the past are of antiquarian interests and not relevant to us. We live in a unique 21st century, which has it's own unique problems and pressing problems, of which the ancients had not an inkling. Conversely, we ourselves are conceptually so locked into our own culture that to understand a society of the past is probably beyond most of us in principle. Most people who therefore say that what we historians do is a time consuming fad.

Well, my riposte to such radical gloom would be simple. To expect to discover in history a series of edifying lessons that can be read off and applied to modern circumstances in some straightforward manner is of course naive. But that is not the point. The study of history is part of man's awareness of himself and the nature and place of his society in the world at large; it is valuable not so much because he can find the past rough parallels to the present, but because he can find societies and events and ideas that are sharply different from those that he encounters from day to day.

Just as the arts - painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature are powerful and influential because they afford us alternative models to consider, so too history allows us to examine other models to consider, other critical approaches to life, which may compare and contrast our own and so understand and take the measure of our own more securely. The society that loses it's grip on the past and does away with its guardians of history is in danger for it produces men who know nothing but the present and who are not aware that life has been and could be different from what it is. Such men bear tyranny easily for they have nothing with which to compare.

Now, a good example of this would be Orwell's 1984 where the government completely changes history every few weeks such that it leaves people clueless about anything in the past.

Also, just to clarify the rather narrow minded view that one has to have tangible results for it to be worthwhile to be pursued. This is not the case since when one actually studies history at higher levels (that is beyond mere memorization of dates), one studies it with philosophy mixed in, and what this does is that it helps mature your mind, it stimulates your intellect. And I don't call that not worthwhile.

History is actually much more complex and intellectually challenging that what most think it would be. It is not simply regurgitating and recording facts.

[b]Yes it is[/b]. \r\n\r\nSimply put some of us aren't built for science, we don't have the inquisitiveness or the rational thinking needed for math and science. Which kind of debunks your entire ''Studying-Science-And-Discovering-Penicillin-Instead-Of-History'' argument. Putting people who are more inclined towards the social sciences in labs will simply backfire. \r\n\r\nAgain, one of the arguments that people have spoken for history is that because it allows us to consider what has happened and learnt from it. Yes it is a valid point, but it is rather minor. Also, to anyone who says history repeats itself, false. \r\n\r\n\r\nNow, the one of the arguments against people studying history is that worlds of the past have vanished, the lessons of the past are of antiquarian interests and not relevant to us. We live in a unique 21st century, which has it's own unique problems and pressing problems, of which the ancients had not an inkling. Conversely, we ourselves are conceptually so locked into our own culture that to understand a society of the past is probably beyond most of us in principle. Most people who therefore say that what we historians do is a time consuming fad. \r\n\r\n\r\nWell, my riposte to such radical gloom would be simple. To expect to discover in history a series of edifying lessons that can be read off and applied to modern circumstances in some straightforward manner is of course naive. But that is not the point. The study of history is part of man's awareness of himself and the nature and place of his society in the world at large; it is valuable not so much because he can find the past rough parallels to the present, but because he can find societies and events and ideas that are sharply [i]different[/i] from those that he encounters from day to day. \r\n\r\nJust as the arts - painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature are powerful and influential because they afford us alternative models to consider, so too history allows us to examine other models to consider, other critical approaches to life, which may compare and contrast our own and so understand and take the measure of our own more securely. The society that loses it's grip on the past and does away with its guardians of history is in danger for it produces men who know nothing but the present and who are not aware that life has been and could be different from what it is. Such men bear tyranny easily for they have nothing with which to compare. \r\n\r\nNow, a good example of this would be Orwell's 1984 where the government completely changes history every few weeks such that it leaves people clueless about anything in the past. \r\n\r\n\r\nAlso, just to clarify the rather narrow minded view that one has to have tangible results for it to be worthwhile to be pursued. This is not the case since when one actually studies history at higher levels (that is beyond mere memorization of dates), one studies it with philosophy mixed in, and what this does is that it helps mature your mind, it stimulates your intellect. And I don't call that not worthwhile. \r\n\r\nHistory is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history]actually[/url] much more complex and intellectually challenging that what most think it would be. [b]It is not simply regurgitating and recording facts. [/b]

offline

sensanaty

1,094 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 9:42am UTC

History is actually much more complex and intellectually challenging that what most think it would be.

History is strangely complicated, it takes a genius to actually work with history. I think it's more complex than anything that can be practiced by far.

As I seen many posts say that History is repeating itself, I strongly disagree. If it did repeat, we would be in very bad positions by now.

Take airplane crashes for an example. If it weren't for history to record why all had happened on the faithful day, thousands of planes would crash daily.

Say nobody knew who first discovered penicillin, and there are two medical students. One of them decides he's gonna go into the HISTORY of medicine, and the other one decides she's gonna go into actual medicine. So the first student discovers that, hey, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin! Meanwhile, the second student discovers a new antibiotic that can take out bacteria that's developed a resistance to penicillin. As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work.

How would you continue their work if you hadn't the documents he/she has documented in?

It is not simply regurgitating and recording facts.

It is far from it, that's only what is learnt before attending college. It gets very, very complicated, using logic and a lot of aspects of philosophy to try to make some sense of why a situation occurred.

Imagine if history didn't exist, and everything that occurred, say, 20 years ago was told by 'experience' and presence in that time. Everyone would say their version of it, and definite facts of why it happened and all that comes after would not exist

So yes, history is extremely improtant

[quote]History is actually much more complex and intellectually challenging that what most think it would be. [/quote]\r\n\r\nHistory is strangely complicated, it takes a genius to actually work with history. I think it's more complex than anything that can be practiced by far.\r\n\r\nAs I seen many posts say that History is repeating itself, I strongly disagree. If it did repeat, we would be in very bad positions by now.\r\n\r\nTake airplane crashes for an example. If it weren't for history to record why all had happened on the faithful day, thousands of planes would crash daily.\r\n\r\n[quote]Say nobody knew who first discovered penicillin, and there are two medical students. One of them decides he's gonna go into the HISTORY of medicine, and the other one decides she's gonna go into actual medicine. So the first student discovers that, hey, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin! Meanwhile, the second student discovers a new antibiotic that can take out bacteria that's developed a resistance to penicillin. As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHow would you continue their work if you hadn't the documents he/she has documented in?\r\n\r\n[quote]It is not simply regurgitating and recording facts.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is far from it, that's only what is learnt before attending college. It gets very, very complicated, using logic and a lot of aspects of philosophy to try to make some sense of why a situation occurred.\r\n\r\nImagine if history didn't exist, and everything that occurred, say, 20 years ago was told by 'experience' and presence in that time. Everyone would say their version of it, and definite facts of why it happened and all that comes after would not exist\r\n\r\n[b]So yes, history is extremely improtant[/b]

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 9:46am UTC

It is far from it, that's only what is learnt before attending college. It gets very, very complicated, using logic and a lot of aspects of philosophy to try to make some sense of why a situation occurred.

Imagine if history didn't exist, and everything that occurred, say, 20 years ago was told by 'experience' and presence in that time. Everyone would say their version of it, and definite facts of why it happened and all that comes after would not exist

Yep. I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's just sad most people have a fixed notion that what they study in elementary schools comprises history whilst in actual fact it comprises just the tip of the iceberg. Historiography, different schools of approaches, philosophy, history can take so many different angles!

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted November 10, '11 10:39am UTC

history is always repeating itself.
if we totaly forget history then we have to make solutions for problems evry time again. while we also could look at history and see how we can solve it or how we atleast should not try to solve it.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 10:49am UTC

history is always repeating itself.
if we totaly forget history then we have to make solutions for problems evry time again. while we also could look at history and see how we can solve it or how we atleast should not try to solve it.

History never repeats itself. A war is simply not the same war as the next. The English Civil War cannot be compared to say the Vietnam War. Yes we can draw very vague and general characteristics, but they are never the same.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted November 10, '11 10:58am UTC

History never repeats itself. A war is simply not the same war as the next. The English Civil War cannot be compared to say the Vietnam War. Yes we can draw very vague and general characteristics, but they are never the same.

i hope that you never learned history. if you learn history then you learn that history do repeat itself.
not like evry war is a copy of a other war ofcours. thats just stupid.
i also never said that history is copying itself all the time but repeating.

anyway i don't see the point of arguing this. so believe what you want and take your own conclusions from history. i can't care less.

offline

sensanaty

1,094 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 11:04am UTC

i hope that you never learned history. if you learn history then you learn that history do repeat itself.

You obviously haven't attended a history lesson in college yet. What they teach you is, that whatever people say, history does not in any way repeat itself. It may seem like that, but you have to understand how historians think, and their brain is a beautiful place

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted November 10, '11 11:07am UTC

You obviously haven't attended a history lesson in college yet.

except for the 4 year that i studied war history. no. (wasn't college either was higher)

offline

sensanaty

1,094 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 11:14am UTC

except for the 4 year that i studied war history. no. (wasn't college either was higher)

Oh. Well I apologize for jumping to conclusions, it's just that all the history professors that guided me through college told me all of the above.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 12:11pm UTC

i hope that you never learned history.

There are a variety of schools of historical thought about historical recurrence and I don't buy the one that states it repeats itself. Respect my opinion as I respect yours.

offline

Hypermnestra

26,390 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 1:21pm UTC

Err...uh...guys?
I was talking about the small aspects of history(specifically, the "artifacts" and the pursuit of careers in archaeology and paleontology).

As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work.

And I don't respect paleontology professors, at all. I barely even respect the students. I respect their intelligence, but not their work. I mean...I get that knowing about the past is nice and all, "if you don't learn from the past you'll repeat it" yada yada yada but if we've already got assault rifles who cares if our ancestors used stone spears and we found a bunch of them? I just feel like that is such a waste! What could we accomplish if intelligent, adventurous people like Gertrude Bell, Sir Arthur Evans, Hiram Bingham, etc. had set their minds to the field of math or of science instead of history!?

So maybe I mistitled the thread. Sorry.

Err...uh...guys? \r\nI was talking about the small aspects of history(specifically, the "artifacts" and the pursuit of careers in archaeology and paleontology). \r\n[quote]As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work. [/quote]\r\n[quote]And I don't respect paleontology professors, at all. I barely even respect the students. I respect their intelligence, but not their work. I mean...I get that knowing about the past is nice and all, "if you don't learn from the past you'll repeat it" yada yada yada but if we've already got assault rifles who cares if our ancestors used stone spears and we found a bunch of them? I just feel like that is such a waste! What could we accomplish if intelligent, adventurous people like Gertrude Bell, Sir Arthur Evans, Hiram Bingham, etc. had set their minds to the field of math or of science instead of history!?[/quote]\r\nSo maybe I mistitled the thread. Sorry.

offline

Hypermnestra

26,390 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 1:30pm UTC

Also, just to clarify the rather narrow minded view that one has to have tangible results for it to be worthwhile to be pursued. This is not the case since when one actually studies history at higher levels (that is beyond mere memorization of dates), one studies it with philosophy mixed in, and what this does is that it helps mature your mind, it stimulates your intellect. And I don't call that not worthwhile.

Just gonna slip this in here...
If philosophy is what makes history truly worthwhile, then why not study philosophy instead of history? That is to say, if you're in it for the philosophy, why not become a philosopher instead of a historian?

Just as the arts - painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature are powerful and influential because they afford us alternative models to consider, so too history allows us to examine other models to consider, other critical approaches to life, which may compare and contrast our own and so understand and take the measure of our own more securely. The society that loses it's grip on the past and does away with its guardians of history is in danger for it produces men who know nothing but the present and who are not aware that life has been and could be different from what it is. Such men bear tyranny easily for they have nothing with which to compare.

Lack of exposure to history doesn't mean lack of exposure to alternate cultures. Modern social studies is fine, and I agree that knowing the history of, say, a country would help you to understand its current socioeconomic state. But at the same time, ancient history might not be as applicable as say, modern social studies. If you want evidence that life is different, that there are different cultures than your own, you need look no further than Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Europe, basically any other place that's not "your" place. Why do you have to look into history for that?
And don't get me started on the arts.

I agree with you to some extent in that people should be taught history. Knowledge of history is great. But a career in history would be less useful than even the things that you say make it worthwhile, say, a career in socioeconomic studies or a career in philosophy.

[quote]Also, just to clarify the rather narrow minded view that one has to have tangible results for it to be worthwhile to be pursued. This is not the case since when one actually studies history at higher levels (that is beyond mere memorization of dates), one studies it with philosophy mixed in, and what this does is that it helps mature your mind, it stimulates your intellect. And I don't call that not worthwhile. [/quote]\r\nJust gonna slip this in here...\r\nIf philosophy is what makes history truly worthwhile, then why not study philosophy instead of history? That is to say, if you're in it for the philosophy, why not become a philosopher instead of a historian? \r\n\r\n[quote]Just as the arts - painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature are powerful and influential because they afford us alternative models to consider, so too history allows us to examine other models to consider, other critical approaches to life, which may compare and contrast our own and so understand and take the measure of our own more securely. The society that loses it's grip on the past and does away with its guardians of history is in danger for it produces men who know nothing but the present and who are not aware that life has been and could be different from what it is. Such men bear tyranny easily for they have nothing with which to compare. [/quote]\r\nLack of exposure to history doesn't mean lack of exposure to alternate cultures. Modern social studies is fine, and I agree that knowing the history of, say, a country would help you to understand its current socioeconomic state. But at the same time, ancient history might not be as applicable as say, modern social studies. If you want evidence that life is different, that there are different cultures than your own, you need look no further than Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Europe, basically any other place that's not "your" place. Why do you have to look into history for that?  \r\nAnd don't get me started on the arts. \r\n\r\nI agree with you to some extent in that people should be taught history. Knowledge of history is great. But a career in history would be less useful than even the things that you say make it worthwhile, say, a career in socioeconomic studies or a career in philosophy.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 1:32pm UTC

I never said we should throw it away. It's too late for that. All I said was that it would have been much better if great minds like Darwin had chosen to go into the field of medicine, science, mathematics, etc. than history. It would have been better for humanity. I would rather have a cure for malaria, or a solution to the energy crisis, or whatever, than the skeleton of a brand-new undiscovered species of dinosaur.
As far as I can tell, the theory of evolution has not benefited humanity in any way. So no. It has not improved the quality of life, and thus is inferior to other fields of study.

Paleontology is important because it allows scientists to create a much more complete map of evolution, and also even helps to demonstrate evolution. Fossils are direct documentation of the history of life. Paleontology allows us to understand more about how we evolved, how other organisms evolved, how life on our planet has changed through time, and how it will continue change in the future.

Why study evolution:
Sometimes students do not see the value in learning about evolution. For some it seems to contradict their religious beliefs; for others it just seems too abstract and happened so long ago it does not seem relevant to them. So why study evolution?

First of all, evolution is one of the unifying threads in modern biology and provides a framework to guide research in areas as diverse and medicine and agricultural science. Sure much good biology can be done without using an evolutionary framework but this is true about other sciences. In astronomy, you could study astronomy as a purely descriptive science dealing with movements of these little points of light called stars but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Scientists want to know even at a basic level how and why things work the way they do. Mere descriptions are not very satisfying to a scientist!

Evolution guides research into many other areas of science and technology. For example, computer scientists are now using specilaized programs called genetic algorithms to do complex design work. These algorithms are built from basic models and concepts straight out of our studies of evolution. A major series of public health problems has to do with the fact that viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to anti viral and anti bacterial medicines as fast as we can develope new ones. This resistance comes about through biological evolution. Similar mechanisms operate in the development of insect resistance to insecticides.

So evolution is not just about things that happened in the distant past. Evoution is happening now and an understanding of evolution is critical for everything from dealing with bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the response that different species might have to climate change, and to understanding our nature and fate as a species. Evolution indeed is central to modern biology!

Evolution is one of the key ideas of modern civilization. So even if you have religious objections to evolution you still ought to have some familiarity with it. After all, how can you object to an idea if you do not understand it?

[quote]I never said we should throw it away. It's too late for that. All I said was that it would have been much better if great minds like Darwin had chosen to go into the field of medicine, science, mathematics, etc. than history. It would have been better for humanity. I would rather have a cure for malaria, or a solution to the energy crisis, or whatever, than the skeleton of a brand-new undiscovered species of dinosaur.\r\nAs far as I can tell, the theory of evolution has not benefited humanity in any way. So no. It has not improved the quality of life, and thus is inferior to other fields of study.[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nPaleontology is important because it allows scientists to create a much more complete map of evolution, and also even helps to demonstrate evolution. Fossils are direct documentation of the history of life. Paleontology allows us to understand more about how we evolved, how other organisms evolved, how life on our planet has changed through time, and how it will [b]continue change[/b] in the future.\r\n\r\n\r\n[url=http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/evolution/whyevol.html]Why study evolution[/url]: \r\n[i]Sometimes students do not see the value in learning about evolution. For some it seems to contradict their religious beliefs; for others it just seems too abstract and happened so long ago it does not seem relevant to them. So why study evolution?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, evolution is one of the unifying threads in modern biology and provides a framework to guide research in areas as diverse and medicine and agricultural science. Sure much good biology can be done without using an evolutionary framework but this is true about other sciences. In astronomy, you could study astronomy as a purely descriptive science dealing with movements of these little points of light called stars but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Scientists want to know even at a basic level how and why things work the way they do. Mere descriptions are not very satisfying to a scientist!\r\n\r\nEvolution guides research into many other areas of science and technology. For example, computer scientists are now using specilaized programs called genetic algorithms to do complex design work. These algorithms are built from basic models and concepts straight out of our studies of evolution. A major series of public health problems has to do with the fact that viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to anti viral and anti bacterial medicines as fast as we can develope new ones. This resistance comes about through biological evolution. Similar mechanisms operate in the development of insect resistance to insecticides.\r\n\r\nSo evolution is not just about things that happened in the distant past. Evoution is happening now and an understanding of evolution is critical for everything from dealing with bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the response that different species might have to climate change, and to understanding our nature and fate as a species. Evolution indeed is central to modern biology!\r\n\r\nEvolution is one of the key ideas of modern civilization. So even if you have religious objections to evolution you still ought to have some familiarity with it. After all, how can you object to an idea if you do not understand it?[/i]

offline

Hypermnestra

26,390 posts

Nomad

Posted November 10, '11 1:41pm UTC

Paleontology is important because it allows scientists to create a much more complete map of evolution, and also even helps to demonstrate evolution. Fossils are direct documentation of the history of life. Paleontology allows us to understand more about how we evolved, how other organisms evolved, how life on our planet has changed through time, and how it will continue change in the future.

I don't have religious objections to evolution...
Anyway, the modern examples it listed(i.e. the bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics) could be concluded without prior knowledge of evolution. We can tell that the bacteria is evolving, we know that we need a different solution.

Sure much good biology can be done without using an evolutionary framework but this is true about other sciences. In astronomy, you could study astronomy as a purely descriptive science dealing with movements of these little points of light called stars but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Scientists want to know even at a basic level how and why things work the way they do.

Evolution is more the "descriptive biology" than active biology, studying creatures for example. We already have an idea of what evolution is and how it works, enough to use it properly in our own studies. Why do we need any more than that? A lot of people looking for fossils are trying to disprove creationism, and that's a pointless venture as I've already explained in my OP.

[quote]Paleontology is important because it allows scientists to create a much more complete map of evolution, and also even helps to demonstrate evolution. Fossils are direct documentation of the history of life. Paleontology allows us to understand more about how we evolved, how other organisms evolved, how life on our planet has changed through time, and how it will continue change in the future.[/quote]\r\nI don't have religious objections to evolution...\r\nAnyway, the modern examples it listed(i.e. the bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics) could be concluded without prior knowledge of evolution. We can tell that the bacteria is evolving, we know that we need a different solution. \r\n\r\n[quote]Sure much good biology can be done without using an evolutionary framework but this is true about other sciences. In astronomy, you could study astronomy as a purely descriptive science dealing with movements of these little points of light called stars but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Scientists want to know even at a basic level how and why things work the way they do.[/quote]\r\nEvolution is more the "descriptive biology" than active biology, studying creatures for example. We already have an idea of what evolution is and how it works, enough to use it properly in our own studies. Why do we need any more than that? A lot of people looking for fossils are trying to disprove creationism, and that's a pointless venture as I've already explained in my OP.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 10, '11 1:46pm UTC

A lot of people looking for fossils are trying to disprove creationism, and that's a pointless venture as I've already explained in my OP.

You must have missed a point. It's not a pointless venture for them to find fossils since fossil finding helps other branches of science. Scientists aren't paid to find fossils just for the sake of actually disproving creationism.

Evolution guides research into many other areas of science and technology. For example, computer scientists are now using specilaized programs called genetic algorithms to do complex design work. These algorithms are built from basic models and concepts straight out of our studies of evolution. A major series of public health problems has to do with the fact that viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to anti viral and anti bacterial medicines as fast as we can develope new ones. This resistance comes about through biological evolution. Similar mechanisms operate in the development of insect resistance to insecticides.

[quote] A lot of people looking for fossils are trying to disprove creationism, and that's a pointless venture as I've already explained in my OP.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou must have missed a point. It's not a pointless venture for them to find fossils since fossil finding helps other branches of science. Scientists aren't paid to find fossils just for the sake of actually disproving creationism. \r\n\r\n[i]Evolution guides research into many other areas of science and technology. For example, computer scientists are now using specilaized programs called genetic algorithms to do complex design work. These algorithms are built from basic models and concepts straight out of our studies of evolution. A major series of public health problems has to do with the fact that viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to anti viral and anti bacterial medicines as fast as we can develope new ones. This resistance comes about through biological evolution. Similar mechanisms operate in the development of insect resistance to insecticides.[/i]

Showing 16-30 of 44

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Is The Study of History a Worthwhile Pursuit?