[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 42 KB, 414x414, 1389901246184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6294819 No.6294819 [Reply] [Original]

History thread!

I realise /sci/ is more oriented towards the natural sciences. However, there are some that would argue history to be a science. From the assumption that history can be seen as a science, it would follow from that that an understanding of history would allow you to predict the future to some degree. This is what certain historians do when they say to have identified an overlapping system of rules governing the history of mankind.

I hereby invite you all, even if you aren't interested at all in history, to offer your perspectives and opinions on what are the factors or developments that matter when you look at history. Are there certain patterns and consistencies that you think exist in human history?

A topic to start off with, which might be relevant to the interests of /sci/, is the question of whether technological determinism is valid. This is the belief that all social change (e.g. change in culture, norms & values, the way governments operate, etc) is determined by material, technological developments within a society.
Corrolary to this, might there be an 'end of history', in which science has developed to such a degree that societal change would end? Or can history never be an exact science? How does that relate to the belief in an absolute reality? offer your perspectives!

>> No.6294823
File: 90 KB, 850x566, 1389901358103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6294823

>> No.6294827
File: 766 KB, 2126x1397, 1389901454792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6294827

>> No.6294829

>>6294819
>>>/lit/
>>>/tg/
>>>/int/

Those are where history is discussed.

History posts attract /pol/ And you don't want to attract /pol/

>> No.6294832

>>6294829
This board is is called Science & Math. I come to this board to discuss history in the spirit of science, and to seek the opinion of those who frequent this board in the same spirit. therefore my thread is perfectly relevant

>> No.6294836

>>6294819
>technological determinism
>>history happened the way it happened
>>therefore it must have happened that way

You're on /sci/ motherfucker provide a double blind study or gtfo

>>I can't provide a control group though

That's because there's been exactly one instance if history.

>>gtfo

>> No.6294840

>>6294832
>>science and math
>> rigorous falsifiable tests to determine the validity of a claim
>>"I came to discuss in the spirit of science"
GTFO philosopher

>> No.6294844
File: 292 KB, 1366x768, 1389901818668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6294844

>>6294819
>past and future on two separate planes

>> No.6294845

>>6294836
Don't be so hostile guys. Anyway, there isn't a consensus on how history happened as well. So we aren't even past the point of identifying what are relevant facts and which aren't.

>>6294836
>>6294840
You run into the same problems with evolution though. You only have evolution occurring once and we establish theories about it retrospectively. This could be seen as an argument as to why history could be scientific as well

>> No.6294847

>>6294827
Will there ever be a greater conference between scientists than this ?

>> No.6294851

>>6294845
>>no consensus on the data
Come back when you gather data on an alternate timeline and have perfect knowledge of history
>>we only have knowledge of evolution occurring once

You motherfucker. Evolution occurs inside of every living creature on the planet at all times. Life may have originated only once, but the principles of evolution occur daily.

>> No.6294853

>>6294847
Holy shit that's an amazing photograph

>> No.6294856

>>6294851
Alright. Instead of making biting comments try to formulate your opinion on history then. So i gather that many of you think that the study of history is hopeless because we have a onesided and unemperical collection of data?

>> No.6294860

If you would argue history is a waste of time, you would be in a difficult position tho: a lot in our society depends on a conception of history. For example, the mere fact that many of you are educated scientifically through state funding of universities originates from the historical understanding that this is beneficial for society.

>> No.6294863

>>6294856
The study of history is not pointless. It's useful and it's relevant but it's ultimately a study of human actions In their specifics unlike the abstract study which anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics take.

I LIKE history this is just the wrong board for it

>> No.6294866

>>6294863
But couldn't history be a culmination of the studies that you mention?

>> No.6294873

>>6294866
It could be but it isn't. I think all the social sciences should have one hat, then we might get something useful/mathematically interesting from them

>> No.6294875

>>6294873
So you're saying that theoretically it is possible to construct exact theories or models that identify the core mechanics of historical developments? are you a determinist in that sense?

>> No.6294884

>>6294875
No because history is carried on the backs of individuals.

The most important historical development in the last 100 years was a 20 year old man going to the right sandwich shop at the right time. That mans name was Gavrilo Princip

>> No.6294885

>>6294863
/pol/ is the right board for it, as >>6294829 unintentionally but convincingly pointed out

>> No.6294889

>>6294884
Yet that is kind of contradictive to what you were saying about social sciences having one hat which would improve history

>>6294885
i would say the core of science is a reliance on reason, i'd like to associate history with that as well, therefore /pol/ would not be the right place for this

>> No.6294892

>>6294884
that's such a pop sci statement. WWI as an event has some of the most complex and intertwined set of causes. one man shooting another may have triggered it, but it sure as hell didn't cause it. cause and occasion

>> No.6294898

>>6294892
i wouldn't say one historical event has causes more complex than another though, though you could say history gets more complex as population increases, thereby increasing the number of actors involved

>> No.6294900

>>6294884
History is filled with little sparks like this, it needs larger macro conditions in order to allow it to sprawl into a world war.

>> No.6294901

>>6294892
That particular action the way that it happened influence the entire course of World War I and thus the 20th century

>> No.6294903

>>6294889
Sorry, but to think that people on /pol/ (or people on any board for that matter) does not and cannot reason is ignorant. There are better boards to argue pre-modern history on but /pol/ is consistent and you'll find some good insights on more recent historical events and current events.

>> No.6294906

>>6294903
true, i made a thread on /pol/ :)

>>6294901
>>6294900
So what do you guys think is the relationship between these little sparks and these big trends? are both independent from each other or can a spark determine a trend in the long term?

>> No.6294905

>>6294898
But every humanness influenced by every human that they've ever interacted with. I just feel like there's no way that you could do it without inventing a whole new type of mathematics

>>tfw no unified field theory

>> No.6294908

>>6294905
care to elaborate as to what the relationship is with a unified field theory?

>> No.6294907

>>6294905
>human is

>> No.6294912

>>6294901
Look at border incidents and other inflammatory moments that never turn into a larger war. The larger logic of geopolitics does not easily bend for any one person.

For instance, North Korea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

>> No.6294914

>>6294912
what is the larger logic of geopolitics?

>> No.6294921

>>6294906
That's the thing we just can't know that's why I've been so against this thread from the from the very beginning. Yes, because there was a build up in interrelationships and complex military technology it seems like World War II one was inevitable. But the thing is we just can't know that. Maybe if he hadn't gone to that particular sandwich shop at that exact moment, Germany would have staged a large scale invasion of America. We just don't know because we have zero experimental controls. We can create models to reflect past trends, but those models are absolutely abysmal in predicting the future.

>> No.6294929

>>6294912
>>who is Julius Caesar
>>who is Lee Harvey Oswald
>>who is Alexander the Great
>>who is Osama bin Laden

>> No.6294939

>>6294929
fascinating righty=

>> No.6294948

I feel like the people of the steppe created the strong civilizations.

The steppe is a fairly hostile place to live in itself so the steppe people tend to migrate from them. The steppe people by constantly challenging their neighbors either created strong neighbors (Persians, Assyrians) or fell their strong neighbors who would now be replaced by the steppe people (Germanic tribes).

This created a strong Europe (Athenian and Roman Empires) and strong China.
North Africa was starting to advance, but being further from the steppe was never going to advance as quickly as Europe, when Rome came in and went all "Carthago delenda est" on them.

This left Europe and China. The next pivotable action was the Opium wars which destroyed Europe's only outside superpower.

And now it is America's term, as it gathered it's allies into the American empire (pronounced NATO). The USSR never had a chance, because people want to stupid crap like silly putty and that stupid crap made capitalism the dominant way of life.

>> No.6294949

>>6294914
1. How capable are the countries in question of projecting force at one another?

1a. Is the economy capable of sustaining warfare for a long period of time?

1b. What is the structure of navigable rivers within the country? Warm and cold water ports are also an important distinction to make, sea trade is very cheap compared to other forms of shipping and gives host country's a huge advantage in exporting products.

1c. Are there obvious physical barriers like mountain ranges that make transport more difficult? How do seasons affect movement and logistics? E.g. don't go to war with Russia in the winter.

1d. How similar are the country's in terms of language, culture and group norms? This effects the ability of the nations to spy on one another and blend in, ancient China's internal wars are structured very differently than hundred years war was. South Korea's Chaebol's owning 80% of the economic output of the country has given it a very esoteric type of democracy, closer to an oligarchy.

1e. Following 1a, is there a contest for access to useful resources, e.g. an island nation like Japan that has an aging population with limited natural resources must secure access to resources and labor.

...

>>6294929
Julius Ceasar is notable because he is incredibly rare, there are not many men like that in history.

The rest of them are not incredibly notable, perhaps with the exception of Alexander.

>> No.6294953

>>6294949
They are still individuals who change the course of history themselves without geopolitics without something bigger affecting its way so many people think that Lee Harvey Oswald is part of something larger conspiracy because the idea that history can be shaped by a single man is frankly terrifying

>> No.6294957

>>6294953
Assassinations do have an effect but it is extremely unpredictable. It's also less effective in a democracy versus a dictatorship.

>> No.6294961

>>6294948
awesome insight! thanks!

>silly putty
i see you watched crashcourse :p. its a good show

>> No.6294973

>>6294949
good points, well thought out. though i think this is a good example of a model that explains history as it happened but it's not suitable to serve as a universal model for history in general because the future can change those rules

1. The definition and conception of a 'country' might change, as do projection and force.

1a. the scales of warfare change, for example with the rise of nuclear power this has become more irrelevant

1b. technological developments can render geographical factors redundant

1c see 1b

1d a development of a global culture due to globalisation might complicate this

1e you rely on the conception of a country whereas with globalisation and individualisation you see a divergence of national interests and individual interests

>> No.6294975

>>6294948
US also had a good set of navigable rivers that decreases the cost of trade, a large desert separating it from Mexico and the Great Lakes separating it from Canada. Lots of natural resources and no nearby enemies made it a lot easier to win.

>> No.6294974

>>6294961
I love it.
Also listen to Hardcore History

>> No.6294978

>>6294974
i will ty. i also like how crashcourse is exactly that yet it also offers new perspectives, like with the renaissance

>> No.6294987

>>6294975
For the Europeans to win?

I feel disease from the Colombian exchange also destroyed Native American's chances.

Are you saying that the Natives having tons of resources made it so they didn't have test their metal against their neighbors which led to them being inferior warmakers than the Eastern Hemisphere?
because I totally think that

>> No.6294991

>>6294948
>carthago delenda est

but if you look at the history of the punic wars the roman victory wasn't that set in stone. a few tactical decisions made differently by the carthaginians could have easily made them win the second punic war for example

>> No.6294994

>>6294978
Hardcore History is the same.
The Apache and the Steppe Stories were mindblowing.

>> No.6294998

>>6294987
yeah but when the europeans arrived they still posessed guns, horses and steel which the natives didn't have. Jaared diamond talks about how that might have been due to the fact that large mammals to be domesticated weren't found in north america for geographical reasons, and this couldn't set in motion a chain of events that led the europeans to develop these three things

>> No.6295007

>>6294998
Thought that there was no domesticated animals weird too.

tfw no llama riders to kick ass

>> No.6295005

>>6294973
1. Agreed, so does the definition of what a corporation is.

1a. Warfare shifted to quieter forms. We never formally went to war with Iran but lots of Iranians keep coming up dead, even while we enter negotiations with them. The Madhi army shelled the Green Zone over and over again and got away with it because they operated through enough layers of non-state proxies even though we know they ultimately trace back to Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani

1b. And yet they remain fairly relevant for most of the world. Witness Britian and France bombing Libya and quickly having to ground some of their jets and use them for spare parts to keep the bombing up. Later they were very dependent on US logistical infrastructure to keep them fueled, as well as an unknown amount of work the CIA did for directing bombing (and some predator drones).

1e. We're at a unique time in history where politics and economics are fairly separated. This may change if the US becomes obsessed with domestic issues, leading to more protectionism. Though there will still be the larger trend towards internationalism.

>> No.6295010

>>6295005
Here's a list back to 2007 with assassinations:
http://analysisintelligence.com/geopolitics/iranian-scientist-assassinations/

>> No.6295018

>>6294991
which tactical decisions?
Rome lost every fight against Carthage, but Rome did not believe they were defeated.
I'm curious of whether or not Hannibal could have besieged Rome, but I don't think he would.
His hit and run tactics kept working until he was forced to defend those southern cities.
But Rome probably wouldn't ever surrender unless Rome itself was besieged

>> No.6295024

>>6295005
i wouldn't necessarily agree on 1e. if they weren't seperated you may argue that it is always in the interests of a government in history to grow the economy of their country. Yet economic interests for the country were often considered to be a threat to nobles (and rightly so). So you still have this occurrence of different layers of society competing economically.

>>6295018
hannibal couldn't bring siege weapons to italy because he came through the alps. otherwise he could have easily wrecked italy. He had to go overland because carthage lost naval supremacy in the first punic war. This was because at one point the entire carthaginian fleet encountered to roman fleet off the coast of sicily, yet the carthaginians were massacred because their ships were really slow due to being overencumbered with supplies for Sicilian troops. Also carthaginian naval technology was far superior to the romans, the romans copied their ships because they found a wrecked one. this might also have been prevented

>> No.6295035

>>6295024
> hannibal couldn't bring siege weapons to italy because he came through the alps.
he crossed it with elephants!!
His plan wasn't to besiege though, so I don't think he would.
Also can't you build siege engines in the field?

> the romans copied their ships because they found a wrecked one.
I loved that
> this might also have been prevented
that they couldn't have found a wrecked one?
They also bought shipwrights to teach their lousy shipwrights.
I think they would have found a way to build a decent navy.

>> No.6295043

>>6295035
elephants can still climb over smaller stones and steps and such, siege engine's you'd practically have to carry on your shoulders if you wanted to cross the alps. But even so he COULD have decided to besiege and conquer rome because he outnumbered the romans. About the navy, that's guesswork. You could just as well say the carthaginians could have found a way to sabotage the roman ships