History is information. There are patterns to be learned, art-of-war like and other.
You can basically decide on the patterns that you want to teach and then go back and construct your history to teach them. That’s how national identities are build. The EU currently tries to do this to create an European identity.
History get’s taught to make people patriotic gives them a structure about how the world is supposed to work.
And the more details he paints in the more compelling the results become (and have to, Bayesian-wise).
Actually more details should make the results less compelling Bayesian-wise. It’s unlikely to get many details right. On the other hand human biases does make a detailed explanation seem more compelling.
You can basically decide on the patterns that you want to teach and then go back and construct your history to teach them.
Sure you can do propaganda. And maybe a lot of history books are misinformation. But as long as you can get enough diverse information I should think that one should be able to filter this out (lots of years after the fact).
Actually more details should make the results less compelling Bayesian-wise.
No. I mean it is possible to udate on the same evidence into opposite directions, but that requires assumptions I don’t think are met be the diverse range of historical records. And if you have got more information the actual outcome should become more likely.
Sure you can do propaganda. And maybe a lot of history books are misinformation. But as long as you can get enough diverse information I should think that one should be able to filter this out (lots of years after the fact).
You don’t have good quality information of the kind that double controlled trials provide. You are left with information that allows telling multiple different stories. In German “story” and “history” both is the same word “Geschichte”.
You don’t need people who want to lie. People write about topics instead of other topic because of motivation. That motivation effects what they write. Certain ideas build together the major-consensus narrative. You will find those ideas in much of the Western literature and there not that much diversity on a fundamental level.
It’s quite possible that the information about some of the most important actors in the 19st century just isn’t in your data. Especially causations like the one between changes in lead and crime rates require a great deal of effort and data. We can’t expect to find those for most of what happened in the 19th century.
In German “story” and “history” both is the same word “Geschichte”.
If this was evidence for anything, then the existence of other languages which distinguish between them would be evidence against it. Do you believe that the existence of other languages that distinguish between the two is evidence against it?
I don’t believe that it’s strong evidence. It’s more like a pointer to illustrate an idea. Furthermore the version of history that says that other countries copied the prussian school system is quite popular.
Hegel also sometimes get cited for inventing history.
Herodotus wrote down a list of things that happened in the past. On the other hand he didn’t have a sense of history that’s about society progressing.
The Roman did value accounts of the ancients and the value of the knowledge of the ancients. They feared that their society declined. That’s very different from the modern idea of history where societies progress. That notion is often attributed to Hegel.
Yes, but the Romans also had a guy talking about ‘a new order of the ages,’ bringing back the Golden Age. Christianity had the idea of Christ returning once the Gospel had reached everywhere. Both Descartes and Bacon made sweeping claims about the benefits of secular investigation.
Bringing back the Golden Age, assumes that you could just go back. That’s very different from the modern notion of history as something that progresses.
The OP did give lots and lots of examples and I’d guess that those were only examples for many more he could give. Of course I can’t exclude that lionhearted just made up his own grande story but it doesn’t look that way. Even if you could disprove some of the relations he drew that doesn’t mean that there are no connections and lessons to be had.
The interesting question is whether he could do actual predictions (and be it at a low probability level) about future events (or events he don’t already know about) from what he learned.
But even if that fails drawing connections still probably enabled him to memorize all this data.
Even if you could disprove some of the relations he drew that doesn’t mean that there are no connections and lessons to be had.
My point isn’t about disproving individual relations. Plenty of time the true cause will be an unknown unknown.
I point is that I distrust the field on a more fundamental level.
The interesting question is whether he could do actual predictions (and be it at a low probability level) about future events (or events he don’t already know about) from what he learned.
Research suggests that making good predictions about the future needs training on making prediction and then exposing yourself to feedback.
If we want to actually do predictions, prediction book is always available.
But even if that fails drawing connections still probably enabled him to memorize all this data.
That’s true. Narratives are quite good for remembering data. While I was in school and still believed in history I had no trouble to get the data from a text I read once and integrate it into an essay.
You can basically decide on the patterns that you want to teach and then go back and construct your history to teach them. That’s how national identities are build. The EU currently tries to do this to create an European identity.
History get’s taught to make people patriotic gives them a structure about how the world is supposed to work.
Actually more details should make the results less compelling Bayesian-wise. It’s unlikely to get many details right. On the other hand human biases does make a detailed explanation seem more compelling.
Sure you can do propaganda. And maybe a lot of history books are misinformation. But as long as you can get enough diverse information I should think that one should be able to filter this out (lots of years after the fact).
No. I mean it is possible to udate on the same evidence into opposite directions, but that requires assumptions I don’t think are met be the diverse range of historical records. And if you have got more information the actual outcome should become more likely.
You don’t have good quality information of the kind that double controlled trials provide. You are left with information that allows telling multiple different stories. In German “story” and “history” both is the same word “Geschichte”.
You don’t need people who want to lie. People write about topics instead of other topic because of motivation. That motivation effects what they write. Certain ideas build together the major-consensus narrative. You will find those ideas in much of the Western literature and there not that much diversity on a fundamental level.
It’s quite possible that the information about some of the most important actors in the 19st century just isn’t in your data. Especially causations like the one between changes in lead and crime rates require a great deal of effort and data. We can’t expect to find those for most of what happened in the 19th century.
If this was evidence for anything, then the existence of other languages which distinguish between them would be evidence against it. Do you believe that the existence of other languages that distinguish between the two is evidence against it?
I don’t believe that it’s strong evidence. It’s more like a pointer to illustrate an idea. Furthermore the version of history that says that other countries copied the prussian school system is quite popular. Hegel also sometimes get cited for inventing history.
I’m pretty sure you need to go back to at least Herodotus to get that title.
Herodotus wrote down a list of things that happened in the past. On the other hand he didn’t have a sense of history that’s about society progressing.
The Roman did value accounts of the ancients and the value of the knowledge of the ancients. They feared that their society declined. That’s very different from the modern idea of history where societies progress. That notion is often attributed to Hegel.
Yes, but the Romans also had a guy talking about ‘a new order of the ages,’ bringing back the Golden Age. Christianity had the idea of Christ returning once the Gospel had reached everywhere. Both Descartes and Bacon made sweeping claims about the benefits of secular investigation.
Bringing back the Golden Age, assumes that you could just go back. That’s very different from the modern notion of history as something that progresses.
The OP did give lots and lots of examples and I’d guess that those were only examples for many more he could give. Of course I can’t exclude that lionhearted just made up his own grande story but it doesn’t look that way. Even if you could disprove some of the relations he drew that doesn’t mean that there are no connections and lessons to be had.
The interesting question is whether he could do actual predictions (and be it at a low probability level) about future events (or events he don’t already know about) from what he learned.
But even if that fails drawing connections still probably enabled him to memorize all this data.
My point isn’t about disproving individual relations. Plenty of time the true cause will be an unknown unknown. I point is that I distrust the field on a more fundamental level.
Research suggests that making good predictions about the future needs training on making prediction and then exposing yourself to feedback.
If we want to actually do predictions, prediction book is always available.
That’s true. Narratives are quite good for remembering data. While I was in school and still believed in history I had no trouble to get the data from a text I read once and integrate it into an essay.
Maybe.
Good idea.
So we agree.