1 Vote
Not science but pleasure
I understand scientific principles and use them in my profession: Engineering.
However, I love history. In fact I have endeavoured to become quite knowledgeable in two areas: Rome in the first century BCE; and the Royal Navy in the Eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
However, I reject the notion that studying history is in any way scientific. It is a pleasure to me partly because it is not about science. The biased reports of historical events and people are all part of the rich tapestry of evidence from which to draw your own (subjective) opinions.
For me history is like classical music, visual arts, literature, language, and poetry. These are things to be enjoyed by a cultrured mind.
The best way to destroy that enjoyment is to formally study those subjects at university level and/or apply scientific principles to them.
RE: Not science but pleasure by scottb
The best way to destroy that enjoyment is to formally study those subjects at university level and/or apply scientific principles to them.
I disagree — this isn’t really a new argument you’re making. Lots of people have this “science destroys beauty” idea. Dawkins’ book, Unweaving The Rainbow is pretty much entirely devoted to answering the argument.
I’m not sure I’d consider the kind of thing you’re talking about to be legitimately the study of history, anyway. More like “history appreciation” (analogous to “art appreciation”).
RE: Not science but pleasure by gnifyus
For me history is like classical music, visual arts, literature, language, and poetry. These are things to be enjoyed by a cultrured mind.
Some are always like that..
Walt Whitman: When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer