Timeline for Are the conclusions we draw from science inherently more certain than those we draw from history?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2021 at 20:48 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2021 at 18:08 | answer | added | user62233 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2021 at 16:22 | answer | added | Double Knot | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 8, 2020 at 3:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1236487096166162433 | ||
| Feb 28, 2020 at 17:12 | answer | added | Ted Wrigley | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 14:24 | answer | added | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 13:46 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | There is no certainty in science, nor in "human affairs". But what do you mean with "conclusions" ? There are well-known historical fact that are "certain" as much as we can (past events, people, etc.). Obviously, also "hard sciences" are based on facts: the big difference is the role played by theories in them and their capabilities to produce predictions. The "power of predictions" of historical and social science is quite limited, instead. | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 11:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 8, 2020 at 3:05 | |||||
| Feb 28, 2020 at 10:54 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | is not science based on history? Are not all datasets historical data? Is not today's events tomorrow's history? | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 1:38 | comment | added | Conifold | I would still say yes, and that would explain what Hegel hyperbolized in his quip. We are much more inclined to act upon conclusions delivered by meticulous methodology of (especially hard) sciences than those drawn from history, with its idiosyncratic contexts and morals that are widely open to interpretation. The flip side is that sciences can not weigh in on many "best" course of action questions, and we have no choice but to turn to history for what guidance it can provide on that. So it is a bit of comparing apples to oranges. | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 1:29 | comment | added | natojato | Hmm. Perhaps I haven't phrased my question right. I'm not referring to what we learn from history and apply to the present. I'm more talking about truth claims in science and history. Essentially my question is this: aren't scientifically investigated facts (e.g. water boils at such and such temperature) more reliable than historical ones (e.g. Alexander the Great did such and such)? | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 1:12 | comment | added | Conifold | "What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it", Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History. So I would say yes. | |
| Feb 27, 2020 at 20:21 | answer | added | Nuclear Hoagie | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 27, 2020 at 20:01 | history | asked | natojato | CC BY-SA 4.0 |