California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Barrister]

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?

Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history.  I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff.  Louis Riel.  Sam Steele.  Billy Bishop.  Vimy Ridge.  Dieppe.  HMCS Bonaventure.  FLQ.

I haven't wanted to generalize with Malthus that my own experience was universal to all of Canada.  But like Malthus, in school I found Canadian history to (mostly) be a bunch of boring PC platitudes.  It wasn't until adulthood I found there were some very cool stories that happened in my own backyard.

One exception - I was in grade school in Saskatoon in 1985 - the 100 year anniversary of the 1885 rebellion.  I remember going on a long field trip to Batoche, seeing bullet holes in the buildings and thinking this was all very cool.

[The Brain]

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.

I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.

As for which specific thing a scientifically mature history would study, probably pretty much the same thing history studies today. I'm not sure what you're after here though.

[Martinus]

I think history may become a science passing the same standard of method as other "hard" sciences, once the bulk of its interest become the times where historical records actually became reliable (unless we invent some sort of "time travel").

I don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".

[Oexmelin]

I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.

Then I don't see what you are aiming at. Your comments are so general that I can safely say that historians are already working that way. But the "what do we know" question is laden with the epistemological problems I have hinted at, about the way knowledge is constructed in both the indifferent sciences and humanities.

I am sure there are "castles in the sky" somewhere - though I am not sure what you are referring to. If it is bad history, well, yes. There is bad history, like bad science, like bad litterature. If then you simply meant that some sciences - like physics - have developped a way to cull out bad science from publications, then again, I can even agree to that. But it goes back to my point about the nature of history and the telling of story. It belongs to everyone. The set skills to write crap popular history is minimal - bar a bit of talent to write. Compare that to the often ghastly scientific journalism. The technical tools of the trade are minimal, the sources spotty and selective. At its heart, history is a work of controlled imagination, but the forms of control are not math, nor physics. Finally, if your "castles in the sky" refer to theoretical musings, some of which you disagree with, it is usually within the grounds of the philosophical enquiries. It can be bad philosophy or social theory, but it can also be quite good.

[Oexmelin]

I don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".

This "what really happened" is an illusion, whether we are talking about 500 y. ago or last year. And I am not talking about determining if this or that battle "really happened" of it is was a complete invention. The point is simply that such establishment of places, dates and peoples is of little interest. What is the best way to tell "what really happened" during the battle of the Somme? Establishing a chronology (itself a process of selection of the central from the peripheric) is useful, but of limited interest.  People fought there. So what? What was the point? Why? Who were those people? The questions we might ask of the middle ages are limited by the kind of sources the middle ages produced, which in itself informs us about the middle ages.

[The Brain]

I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.

Then I don't see what you are aiming at.

I know, and I don't think there is a way for me to successfully explain it to you.

[The Brain]

I don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".

This "what really happened" is an illusion, whether we are talking about 500 y. ago or last year. And I am not talking about determining if this or that battle "really happened" of it is was a complete invention. The point is simply that such establishment of places, dates and peoples is of little interest. What is the best way to tell "what really happened" during the battle of the Somme? Establishing a chronology (itself a process of selection of the central from the peripheric) is useful, but of limited interest.  People fought there. So what? What was the point? Why? Who were those people? The questions we might ask of the middle ages are limited by the kind of sources the middle ages produced, which in itself informs us about the middle ages.

You personally may not be interested in what actually happened, but many people are. And there are many possible reasons for people to be interested. From curiosity to economic reasons.

[Oexmelin]

Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

[Oexmelin]

I know, and I don't think there is a way for me to successfully explain it to you.

Same here.

[The Brain]

Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.

[grumbler]

Forgetting is one thing, not being taught is another. Perhaps grumbler could shed light on the curriculum regarding the tariff.

Haven't taught US history in some years, so I can't say what is currently taught, but I certainly never taught the Tariff of 1828 as the "Tariff of Abominations" any more than I taught the ACW as "The War of Northern Aggression."  I always taught the tariff as part of the Nullification Crisis.

[Oexmelin]

Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.

No I am not, and yes there are. Still, provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

[The Brain]

Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.

No I am not, and yes there are. Still, provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.

You're barking up the wrong tree. In science you can only reach degrees of uncertainty.

I observe that if we couldn't know anything about what has happened in the past then hard science and engineering wouldn't work since they are based on knowledge about past events.

[Oexmelin]

I know that.

Do you think law is a science?

[Martinus]

I know that.

Do you think law is a science?

Theory of law is a science (or can be). Law cannot be a science any more gravity could be "science".