Comments on: Doing Science in the Past

By: Joao Bosco Miquelao

Joao Bosco Miquelao — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:06:22 +0000

The post on May 19th should reads as follows: Hiding itself , as it happens with nations without state (like Basques and Kurds,) I wonder why Haiti didn`t lose its sovereign of a nation state.

By: Joao Bosco Miquelao

Joao Bosco Miquelao — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:05:32 +0000

The post on May 19th should reads as follows: Hiding itself , as it happenes with nations without state (like Basques and Kurds,) I wonder why Haiti didn`t lose its sovereign of a nation state.

By: Anthony Stocks

Anthony Stocks — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:08:23 +0000

It is gratifying to see some measure of recognition for the “comparative method” of history as science. However, to give credit to Diamond and his colleague for inventing the method rather gives short shrift to anthropology which was born as the “science of history” under Edward Burnett Tylor nearly 150 years ago. Diamond has been a significant in popularizing the science of anthropology with his use of Marvin Harris’ “Cultural Materialism” in “Guns, Germs and Steel” and “Collapse” and many anthropologists are at peace with his role, but Shermer’s review commits a significant scientific error in science history itself by failing to give credit to the fundamental builders of ideas.

By: Heliocles

Heliocles — Tue, 25 May 2010 11:47:30 +0000

Sorry, Diamond works at University of California, of course. Only his co-author is from Harvard.

By: Heliocles

Heliocles — Tue, 25 May 2010 11:45:36 +0000

This post begins with the most blatant case of stating the obvious that I’ve read in years. I grasped “The comparative method of historical science” when I was about five, and have met few persons who deny its validity (though I hardly speak to religious or postmodern fanatics). So, a harsh climate and political oppression makes a country poorer?

If Jared Diamond has argued against the idiots who blame Haiti’s poverty on a pact with the devil, then that is OK, but you’d hardly need to be a Harvard Professor to apply basic rules of cause and effect to history.

I am from Sweden, and we have one word “vetenskap” (German Wissenschaft) that denotes natural science as well as history, socionomy etc. “Vetenskap” is simply the noun that goes with the verb “forska” (research). Then “vetenskap” is divided into its various sub-categories, with all their different methods. If the use of “science” for “natural science” only is really so confusing for English-speakers that many of them are amazed that history, even though it is not usually included in “science”, can be used as a scientific method to explain the present, then there is obviously something quite wrong with the English terminology in this aspect.

But I doubt that; Michael Shermer is just trying to present standard analysis as something remarkable, perhaps because it’s done by a professor from Harvard. The rest of the post is however a good history lesson.

By: arjun

arjun — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:28 +0000

The confusing remark from Rajesh refers to a claim by a crazy American religious nut (Pat Robertson) who claimed Haiti’s natural disasters were brought on by a pact the people made in the past with the devil. Obviously, the reasoning expressed in the article is a much better explanation for Haiti’s woes.

By: shiranaize

shiranaize — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:46:20 +0000

Jim Osborne, why do you equate sociology to myths and falsehood? I am confused by this. I don’t think you understand the difference between quantitative and qualitative science. If you approach the study of humans only quantitatively, you would be making some big mistakes (just consider how easily surveys can become deceptive unless you use examine your terms qualitatively). It is important to understand the differences of these two approaches though, otherwise one can fall for pseudoscience just as easily.
I think, though I do agree with Carlos Mejia that it is an ambiguous thesis at the beginning, that Shermer is suggesting that by using the comparative method, historical evidence can be given traditional scientific analysis. Shermer mentions natural experiments and hypotheses at the end of the post, which would suggest the Haiti-Dominican Republic example is something that can act as a case study or natural experiment to test a hypothesis about a historical event or human social behaviors. If done thoroughly and precisely, like Jared Diamond often seems to do, it is reminiscent of how we test theories about evolution, is it not?

By: P Robbie

P Robbie — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:27:54 +0000

Sometimes it doesn’t matter if it’s history or science or balderdash,if it’s interesting it’s worth reading,and this was.Must be a scientific reason for this

By: Carlos Mejia

Carlos Mejia — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:03:43 +0000

The meaning of the opening sentence seems rather vague.

Is Mr. Shermer saying that history could more often be thought of (by whom? scientists? historians? the public at large?) as a science if it uses the “comparative method”? Or is he saying that history that uses the “comparative method” is a science?

If the former, what evidence can Mr. Shermer offer to verify that claim? If the latter, how is he defining “science”? And, would the use of the “comparative method” necessarily make history into a science? If so, how?

By: Joao Bosco Miquelao

Joao Bosco Miquelao — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:11:21 +0000

Hiding itself , as it happenes with nations without state (like Basques and Kurds,) I wonder why Haiti didn`t lost its sovereign of a nation state.