Can we have a History forum ?

[MigL]

Can we ?

Can we ? Can we ?

 

Pretty please ?

[arc]

Can we have a History forum ?

Can we ?

Can we ? Can we ?

 

Pretty please ?

 

Science + History? That would be any thread regarding geology in Earth sciences.

[CasualKilla]

History is not really a science, and its very subjective. Also it not really about understanding, you just gotta sit down and learn what happened. WW2 was in 1942? I just cant understand that idea PLS help?? I say no. But I don't really have the right to an opinion on here yet.

[MigL]

History has nothing to do with when things happened, CasualKilla.

I suggest that the only lack of understanding is on your part.

[ajb]

I imagine that discussing the history of specific parts of science could be interesting to some people as would the use of science in history & archaeology.

[Ophiolite]

If we have a section on religion then we absolutely should have a section on history.

 

And we do have a section on religion, therefore.......

[swansont]

History can certainly be discussed within a scientific framework, similar to how we try and approach religion and political discussion: rational, civil discussion based on facts and not rhetoric.

[StringJunky]

Seems odd that nobody thought of it before. I can see plenty of scope for arguing discussing the veracity, interpretation and timeline of past events.

[imatfaal]

Can I lay the first bet of the sweepstake - I reckon it will be 43 days after the opening of the History Forum that we get our first full blown holocaust denial

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Out of curiosity, what kinds of topics would you discuss in the history forum?

[DevilSolution]

The scientific implications of inbreading in wetern culture since 0 ad?

 

Joking, which scientist has had the most influence in science? At what dates did specific laws/postulates get dscovered? any patterns? Why did certain scietific civilisations die out? etc etc.

 

Science could be second nature to the debate such as the spanish being successfull explorers due to their scietiric advances...and the british etc etc.

 

And the "what ifs", what if ameica didnt pretend to get bombed by japan? what if einstein was a nazi.

Edited December 12, 2014 by DevilSolution

[arc]

Can I lay the first bet of the sweepstake - I reckon it will be 43 days after the opening of the History Forum that we get our first full blown holocaust denial

 

You were only off by 43 days for what looks like an example from one of the classic conspiracy theories. This does not bode well for a forum that would be open to wild conjecture.

 

 

And the "what ifs", what if ameica didnt pretend to get bombed by japan?

 

What if America didn't pretend to get bombed by Japan?

 

Could you require that proper evidence be shown to support any and all such claims? And who would want to wade through the mountain of crap that is available on line that could be offered as such? This will degenerate quickly without some kind of filter.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How about requiring that the history forum be about interpretations and meaning of historical events, rather than establishing their existence? Particularly for well-documented events; I'm sure there's a lot to be said about digging up evidence for certain things, but we could close Holocaust denial threads. There's nothing productive to be gained from arguing about the Holocaust's existence on a science forum, where you're certainly not going to convince anyone or produce any evidence that hasn't been produced in great detail elsewhere.

[Ophiolite]

There's nothing productive to be gained from arguing about the Holocaust's existence on a science forum, where you're certainly not going to convince anyone or produce any evidence that hasn't been produced in great detail elsewhere.

I totally disagree. Whether one is arguing the reality of the holocaust, the truth of evolution, the validity of relativity, or the likelihood of the Big Bang, one is rarely arguing to convince the proponent of the other view. One is arguing to persuade the lurkers who have not heard the solid arguments one can present and have been swayed somewhat by the rhetoric of the cranks. This is an important role and is one of the main reasons I engage in such discussion.

[StringJunky]

I totally disagree. Whether one is arguing the reality of the holocaust, the truth of evolution, the validity of relativity, or the likelihood of the Big Bang, one is rarely arguing to convince the proponent of the other view. One is arguing to persuade the lurkers who have not heard the solid arguments one can present and have been swayed somewhat by the rhetoric of the cranks. This is an important role and is one of the main reasons I engage in such discussion.

Agreed, it's trying to crack the hard nuts that refines and consolidates our debating skills not the easy ones. We learn more from our failures than our successes. One thing we can do though is suggest to lock a thread when it clearly starts to become circular.

Edited December 13, 2014 by StringJunky

[arc]

This is an important role and is one of the main reasons I engage in such discussion.

 

And that is why I will read your posts even when I wasn't even following the particular thread. You always have something worth the time to stop and look. But in time they may outnumber you by a wide margin when word gets out, you may become quite busy.

[Ophiolite]

Out of curiosity, what kinds of topics would you discuss in the history forum?

1. The extent to which the absence of printing inhibited the development of sub-Saharan civilisations.

2. The role of climate change in the rise and fall of Empires.

3. The misonomer of Pax Brittanica.

4. Whether Hitler's views were shaped by his experiences in the trenches, or his earlier experiences in Austria.

5. Is the notion of history as being subject to continual reevaluation equivalent to the concept that all scientific hypotheses are provisional.

6. The manner in which political views are shaped by necessary historical simplifications.

7. Are historical simplifications necessary?

8. The French rationale for the Lousiana Purchase.

9. What if Santa Anna had won at San Jacinto?

10. How might he have done so?

11. Should more emphasis be placed on the history of science in school and university?

12. Was the success of the Roman Empire strongly tied to the lack of racial prejudice in the system?

13. Why have the animosities in the Balkans remained strong over several centuries, whereas the Civil War in the US creates no such violent divisions.

14. To what extent did colonisation of the East Indies delay, or promote their subsequent advances.

15. Will the techniques of the Han Chinese in creating a mythology of a long unified country survive the realities of this century?

16. What factors were most critical in determining the time and place of the Enlightenment?

17. If you were Russian wouldn't you be pissed of that the Americans think they won WWII?

18. etc.

[ajb]

One thing I would like to find out more about it how historians can use the scientific method logic and mathematics to draw conclusions. But I don't think we have any experts in the methodology of historians here. Or am I wrong?

[Vexen]

Can we ?

Can we ? Can we ?

 

Pretty please ?

Yes, we can have a history forum.

[MigL]

Here's one of my favorites...

 

How would the world be different had Von Moltke followed the Shliffen plan during the initial assault on France in 1914, and the Central powers won the war ?

( No WW2, no communism, no cold war, etc, etc. )

[Ophiolite]

Here's one of my favorites...

 

How would the world be different had Von Moltke followed the Shliffen plan during the initial assault on France in 1914, and the Central powers won the war ?

( No WW2, no communism, no cold war, etc, etc. )

Please sir, I know this one. Parisian taxi drivers would not be hailed as the heroes of the Battle of the Marne. This may not seem important on a global scale, but I'm sure it matters to Parisian taxi drivers.

[CharonY]

I have mixed feeling about this (as I have about the religion section). History as a science is typically misunderstood (as the posts in this thread already indicate). It is not so much about definite interpretations of events or even just their enumeration. History provides context to events but does not in itself lead to specific conclusions.More often than not, proper historic context will just tell us that things are more complicated than one has learned, which is in line with lessons in natural sciences, at least when dealing with complex systems.

 

For example, the seemingly simple question whether the use of atomic bombs was necessary is incredibly loaded (even worse, if we work the word "justified" into that sentence) and by adding even a limited number of events (pending invasion from Soviets, Japan's willingness to surrender before the drops, internal strife in the Japanese supreme council, etc) and documents of that time, it is clear that there is no clear answer. The only thing one could state that is that most likely multiple factors lead to the decision, but as long as no specific documents from the decision makers to this event are unearthed, one an only speculate with regards to the relative importance of the respective events. That is why it is actually important that historian disagree on specific views while providing evidence to support it.

 

Other questions such as:

 

 

 

How would the world be different had Von Moltke followed the Shliffen plan during the initial assault on France in 1914, and the Central powers won the war ?

 

are even more speculative. While there may be some more or less realistic assumptions one could make, I do think that they fit well into the speculations part of this forum. In a similar vein one could ask that based on our knowledge of evolution, how the gene pool is going to look in 20,000 years.

 

Do not get me wrong, I do think history is important and especially for political discussions, proper knowledge can help in avoiding silly arguments and drawing up wrong historical analogies.

Yet, in many cases the knowledge about history of most people (myself included) is far too limited to be able to lead a proper discussion without reading a lot of source material. History in high school is woefully unequipped to actually teach history.More often than not, it becomes a pure list of events thing and simple narratives and if we base our discussions on that it would be a rather pointless exercise. We would need at least a few experts (such as the case of the other sciences) to properly direct the flow of discussions in my opinion.

[MigL]

The fact that our knowledge of history is limited ( I only speak for myself here ) is a reason for having a forum, not against.

We like to think we provide some impetus to newcomers to 'jump in the pool' of the sciences after having 'dipped their toe' in our forums. A History forum would do the same for some of us, and other newcomers.

I myself only became interested in History about 6 yrs ago ( last History class was in Gr 10, high or middle school ), but have read a lot and 'crave' discussion of some of the ideas and concepts.

I'd even settle for a Science History forum.

[zapatos]

History is discussed to some extent in every forum on this site. Usually there is a discussion of science that veers off the path for a while into history for context and understanding. It would be interesting to see a discussion of history that veers off into science to provide context and understanding.

[Ten oz]

The idea seems interest however I am struggling with the thought that most topics would basically become religious or political debates.