California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[The Brain]

They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.

Astrophysics doesn't rely on repeatable and checkable observations?

Paleontologists don't have continual access to the actual physical specimens they are basing their theories on?

Explain where history can match this? Even period writings are often biased, incomplete and innaccurate (consider battle casualty reports if you doubt the last one.)

You are either trolling or insane.

I don't follow. Are you saying that you can't get meaningful understanding from history?

I am saying that history can never be reduced to the simple "if A, then B" that an absolutely rigorous science demands because one is reliant on what evidence is available; one cannot recheck data in the way ordinary sciences can by simply performing an experiment or measurement again. Take paleontology, for example; new fossils are always being found. It is vanishingly rare in history for a new period document to be found for anything past the last couple of centuries, yet we have six thousand years of recorded history.

Let's have an example; the Bayeux tapestry has a line saying that "King Harold is killed". yet historians cannot agree whether the figure with an arrow in his eye or the figure being cut down by an axe is Harold. They can't even agree if the tapestry was altered or not when it was restored. Where is the new evidence going to come from to resolve this issue "scientifically"?

There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?

[garbon]

Perhaps if we were not limited by our biases, we would have found it all kinds of interesting. 

It took me a long time to overcome the dislike of Canadian history implanted by our ham-fisted educational system and to realize that, in point of fact, Canadian history has all sorts of interest. None of which was developed in school, of course.

To be fair I had the same reaction to US history in public education and our system didn't seem to suffer from the issues you and PP have highlighted.  I found it dull because almost every class focused on the same subjects - Revolutionary War to 1820. Lots of glossing till the Civil War period (a little antebellum to a tinge of reconstruction). Then WWI, Great Depression and WWII.  We'd basically be taught the same events over and over, except that each year we were instructed to be a little more jaded by introducing more moral shades of gray about America's actions.  I think I fell into disliking America by the end of high school. 

[Agelastus]

There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?

Because there is no conceivable way absent time travel that all uncertainties about history can be resolved; that is not true of any subject that is a genuine science. Even paleontology has this as a theoretical possibility, as vanishingly unlikely as that may be, given how the evidence for paleontology is gathered.

The study of History is never classed as a science for good reason.

[Oexmelin]

There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?

It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.

What would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?

[Razgovory]

There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?

It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.

What would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?

There were people who considered history a science before.

[Agelastus]

An interesting link related to this issue.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/129.html

[The Brain]

There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?

Because there is no conceivable way absent time travel that all uncertainties about history can be resolved; that is not true of any subject that is a genuine science. Even paleontology has this as a theoretical possibility, as vanishingly unlikely as that may be, given how the evidence for paleontology is gathered.

The study of History is never classed as a science for good reason.

Even if there was a theoretical way to reduce all uncertainties to zero in "genuine science" (which would surprise me) it seems curious to me to think that this difference would be important, since it only comes into play at some point in the very distant future when we have perfected any such genuine science. Until then the situation is the same: uncertainties abound.

I certainly agree that history today is severely lacking in the science department.

[CountDeMoney]

(for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't).

Newton wasn't gay, and neither are you.

[The Brain]

It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.

Any story? Or a story that attempts to explain what happened in the past?

What would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?

The same as other scientifically mature fields, typically advancing basic understanding or solving specific problems.

[Razgovory]

(for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't).

Newton wasn't gay, and neither are you.

I've never seen any evidence that Newton was gay.  Why is it every historical man who's sexual history is not well know is labeled gay?

[Oexmelin]

The same as other scientifically mature fields, typically advancing basic understanding or solving specific problems.

Sorry, let me rephrase that: what would be the specific "thing" which history studies?

Contrary to some other fields of human knowledge, and similarly to others, history's objects - whatever they might be - are not indifferent. There is no indifferent way to read a text, to interpret or discern meaning, and to assert the truth-value of a statement of intent, emotion, or aesthetic judgement. This is not to say we can not achieve this: simply, that there are few ways by which those can be to a large degree independant of both the social, and intimate experience.

Paleontology and astrophysics are indeed good debate points. Yet, both paleontology and astrophysics have built themselves by refering to either highly indifferent science or language, such as physics or math, or mildly indifferent, such as biology and chemistry.

There are precious few such resources in history, and whatever they yield as insight is poor and near-useless: datations, internal coherence, etc. The help historians can conscript in their interpretation of the past is that of very basic psychology, philosophy, litterature, economics. These can lead to debate, often to invalidation and the establishment of "research programmes" designed to test interpretative hypothesis - but such debate and invalidation can not take place within the model of the indifferent sciences.

In other words, I know of no standardized way to interpret a text, extract meaning of it, and establish paradigmatic certainties in the humanities. The knowledge history - or art, litterature, philosophy - yields is of a different nature.

[Jacob]

For years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.

Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?

[Ed Anger]

The invention of flannel.

[Ideologue]

For years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.

Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?

I'm not Malthus, but I thought Dieppe was pretty interesting, in the sense that Canadians were used like the objects on any given episode of Will It Blend.  (Which brought new information, if long guessed at, as Australians and New Zealanders had been known to blend since 1915.)

[Malthus]

For years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.

Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?

Heh, that was PP, not me ... but there is *tons* of interesting Canadian history.

To give but two examples, in your neck of the woods, Canada is home to one of the very few areas in the world in which a relatively high civilization (chiefdomships rather than bands or tribes) was built on a hunting/gathering lifestyle - the Pacific West coast natives.

In my neck of the woods - Toronto (then York) was burnt down in the War of 1812; in revenge for that, Washington was burned.