Is history useless?

[Ondskan]

LoL.
Ignorance is bliss?
All other arguments are invalid.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Homer probably wasn't a single person, and the events in the Iliad are mythical and don't match up well with historical evidence at all. There are many anachronistic references as well.

So "Homer" probably could've composed the Iliad without knowing something of history.

Homer (or "Homer") did a hell of a lot better job than the people who wrote the Old Testament. At least Heinrich Schliemann actually found a city where the Iliad said there was one (even if it wasn't the same Troy). You can't say the same of the instances where archaeologists have been searching for many of the cities mentioned in the Bible.

They're pretty good at popularizing science and engendering wonder at the natural world. People love dinosaurs.

You still don't need a paleontologist for that. Just about any good communicator like Bill Nye, or some documentary maker for PBS or Discovery is better at popularizing dinosaurs than an actual paleontologist. That still reduces paleontology by saying that the benefit of paleontology is that it encourages people to join other sciences, again, reducing it to an appendage.

I'll be sure to mention this to Dr. Phil Currie of the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller. He's one hell of a good popularizer of paleontology.

This is a cop-out, you need to do this for any academically rigorous degree, and "rigorous" research in an area where there's nothing new to discover pales in comparison to research where you're trying to discover something that nobody else has ever managed to.

So you think there is nothing new to discover about history? You think we know and understand EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY???

 

[Zelig]

So you think there is nothing new to discover about history? You think we know and understand EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY???

I don't see how the amount of history is relevant whether or not we currently know it, it's by definition not new knowledge.

 

[Crezth]

But while lawyers can protect people from unjust fines, false imprisonment, or death, or can help bring criminals and others to justice, and engineers help design things like bridges and roads and sewers, I can't shake the feeling that historians are, for the most part, little more than amusing storytellers, and in my opinion, at least, that's not as "beneficial" to society than a working legal system, functioning infrastructure, public health, or the benefits of a million other professions.

You will need to define "beneficial" at least somewhat convincingly because societies have thrived without lawyers, engineers, and doctors since the dawn of man. One thing you will never find them without, curiously enough, is storytellers.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'll be sure to mention this to Dr. Phil Currie of the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller. He's one hell of a good popularizer of paleontology.

Evidently not, as I haven't heard of him (or the Royal Tyrell Museum, or Drumheller), but I HAVE heard of Bill Nye, Steven Spielberg, and Akira Ifukube.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see how the amount of history is relevant whether or not we currently know it, it's by definition not new knowledge.

Yes, but only in the sense that all knowledge is not new knowledge.

 

[Dachs]

Is there any evidence to show a causal relationship between knowledge of history and predictive ability of anything useful?

The entire point of knowing anything (excepting stuff that's fun to know) is for the predictive ability.

There is none. The seminal study here was done by Tetlock and Belkin, who, among many other things, found that leading academics were incapable of predicting even fairly major world events - the demise of the Soviet Union was the main one brought up - with a degree of reliability greater than a coinflip, and even then the predictions skewed ideologically to the point of uselessness.

Homer (or "Homer") did a hell of a lot better job than the people who wrote the Old Testament. At least Heinrich Schliemann actually found a city where the Iliad said there was one (even if it wasn't the same Troy). You can't say the same of the instances where archaeologists have been searching for many of the cities mentioned in the Bible.

The Iliad doesn't provide a geographical location for Ilion at all. Classical Greek and Roman authors sort of did, but they were vague. Augustus claimed to have constructed a new city on the site of ancient Ilion (inventively titled Ilium), but there's no way to know if the Romans were actually right about the ancient city's location. Anyway, Frank Calvert, who actually started the excavations at Hisarlik, wasn't working off of the Iliad when he did so. To this day, there's considerable controversy over whether the site conventionally referred to as "Troy" is the same city as appeared in Homeric myth or not. Even if it is, the Iliad's references apply in different ways to the layers called Troy VI and Troy VII(a). Good luck sorting that out.

The Bible is completely irrelevant here, but it's worth noting that the Old Testament isn't even remotely exact about where cities were located, either. And the Old Testament, while far from a totally reliable relation of events (even over the things that don't require a deity for the explanation), does reference many things that are independently confirmed as non-legendary (e.g. the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, the Battle of Carchemish, and the campaigns of Shshnq I), is itself independently verified over some things (the Omride dynasty, for instance), and in many places is treated as a more or less accurate chronicle. The same cannot be said of the Iliad, which at best is an anachronistic mishmash of place-names inhabited during various eras depicting an impossible war fought between mythical heroes and imaginary deities.

Evidently not, as I haven't heard of him (or the Royal Tyrell Museum, or Drumheller), but I HAVE heard of Bill Nye, Steven Spielberg, and Akira Ifukube.

The Tyrell is referenced in the novel Jurassic Park.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Give me a break, it's been like a decade and a half since I read the thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The entire point of knowing anything (excepting stuff that's fun to know) is for the predictive ability.

What predicative ability does knowing the entire point of knowing things offer?

 

[Zelig]

Yes, but only in the sense that all knowledge is not new knowledge.

No, discovering the structure of benzene is new knowledge is the sense that discovering what Genghis Khan had for breakfast is not.

There is none. The seminal study here was done by Tetlock and Belkin, who, among many other things, found that leading academics were incapable of predicting even fairly major world events - the demise of the Soviet Union was the main one brought up - with a degree of reliability greater than a coinflip, and even then the predictions skewed ideologically to the point of uselessness.

Intuitively I suspect that major world events would be significantly more difficult to predict than long-term trends.

What predicative ability does knowing the entire point of knowing things offer?

None at first glance, lots of meta-knowledge about humans is essentially worthless.

 

[Masada]

Intuitively I suspect that major world events would be significantly more difficult to predict than long-term trends.

We suck at that too. See for instance Francis Fukuyama.

 

[LightSpectra]

Homer (or "Homer") did a hell of a lot better job than the people who wrote the Old Testament. At least Heinrich Schliemann actually found a city where the Iliad said there was one (even if it wasn't the same Troy). You can't say the same of the instances where archaeologists have been searching for many of the cities mentioned in the Bible.

You think the remnants of a tiny hill fort in western Turkey aligns with a Homeric Troy, which makes it "a hell of a lot better" than the Septuagint, whose B.C. descriptions of Jerusalem, Jericho and Samaria were the impetus of almost all Levantine archaeology?

 

[Verbose]

There's a difference between knowledge of history and use of history.

Everyone uses history. There's no real getting away from relating to it somehow.

The position that history is useless is perfectly fine example of a use of history. It matters primarily because if identity (individual, collective, national etc.) matters to you, history is important.

As one of the current crop of leading historians my neck of the woods has put it: It tends to be very important what those who wield power in society think history is useful for. That includes the position that it's not actually useful at all (general feeling about it by everyone and everything wedded to "modernity" in fact, which has it's own history). It might however be worthwhile to pay attention to who assigns what role to history. It will tend to matter for politics of identity. Don't pay attention, and you do in fact open yourself for manipulation of some kind. I would say this tends to hold whether you happen to find yourself sold lines from nationalist history, or from some other kind of project of anti-historical modernity.

No getting away from history. It's always being used.

 

[Azale]

This is a cop-out, you need to do this for any academically rigorous degree, and "rigorous" research in an area where there's nothing new to discover pales in comparison to research where you're trying to discover something that nobody else has ever managed to.

Maybe it's a cop-out, I don't care. I study history because I enjoy it, and it widened my horizons to economics, political science, and gave me some additional impetus to learn Spanish. I know why I study it. All my post was doing was attempting to add-on to what other posters had already mentioned. History can be a vehicle for improved writing and research skills among other things, I don't see a problem with saying that.

You can put rigorous in quotation marks, but it doesn't make it any less so. You can get in the weeds about the definition of "new" discoveries, but I think that is rather useless too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, discovering the structure of benzene is new knowledge is the sense that discovering what Genghis Khan had for breakfast is not.

Did Benzine not have structure before someone discovered it?

None at first glance, lots of meta-knowledge about humans is essentially worthless.

What predictive quality does the knowledge that lots of meta-knowledge about humans is essentially worthless offer?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't see how the amount of history is relevant whether or not we currently know it, it's by definition not new knowledge.

If we didn't know it before, or it was lost and then rediscovered, it's new knowledge (or as good as).

Evidently not, as I haven't heard of him (or the Royal Tyrell Museum, or Drumheller), but I HAVE heard of Bill Nye, Steven Spielberg, and Akira Ifukube.

Just because YOU haven't heard of him...? I've heard Phil Currie in person. And btw, the last person on your list is somebody I've never heard of. Am I sneering at you for that?

The Iliad doesn't provide a geographical location for Ilion at all. Classical Greek and Roman authors sort of did, but they were vague. Augustus claimed to have constructed a new city on the site of ancient Ilion (inventively titled Ilium), but there's no way to know if the Romans were actually right about the ancient city's location. Anyway, Frank Calvert, who actually started the excavations at Hisarlik, wasn't working off of the Iliad when he did so. To this day, there's considerable controversy over whether the site conventionally referred to as "Troy" is the same city as appeared in Homeric myth or not. Even if it is, the Iliad's references apply in different ways to the layers called Troy VI and Troy VII(a). Good luck sorting that out.

My point is that they were looking for a city, and Schliemann was inspired by the story of Troy. He hoped to find it, and at least something was found. I've read books about it and seen documentaries - I agree that it's very likely not the same Troy as that in the Iliad. But at least it's something.

It's too bad the artifacts were removed, though. That wasn't remotely a proper dig by modern standards (or even the standards of a few decades ago).

The Bible is completely irrelevant here, but it's worth noting that the Old Testament isn't even remotely exact about where cities were located, either. And the Old Testament, while far from a totally reliable relation of events (even over the things that don't require a deity for the explanation), does reference many things that are independently confirmed as non-legendary (e.g. the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, the Battle of Carchemish, and the campaigns of Shshnq I), is itself independently verified over some things (the Omride dynasty, for instance), and in many places is treated as a more or less accurate chronicle. The same cannot be said of the Iliad, which at best is an anachronistic mishmash of place-names inhabited during various eras depicting an impossible war fought between mythical heroes and imaginary deities.

Yes, I am aware that *some* of the places mentioned and *some* of the people and *some* of the events actually existed/happened, although not for the reasons given in the Old Testament. But there are far too many that have NO proof that they ever existed or happened. As for the Egyptian chronology, I saw a documentary where archaeologists discovered some burial sites that contradicted the chronology to the extent that it had to be adjusted by several centuries, at least.

The Tyrell is referenced in the novel Jurassic Park.

Yay! It takes a movie to verify what I've seen with my own eyes...

You think the remnants of a tiny hill fort in western Turkey aligns with a Homeric Troy, which makes it "a hell of a lot better" than the Septuagint, whose B.C. descriptions of Jerusalem, Jericho and Samaria were the impetus of almost all Levantine archaeology?

Did I ever say I thought Schliemann had discovered the exact city the Iliad was talking about? No.

Did I ever say that I thought Jerusalem was a myth? No.

Now Joshua/his men blowing a bunch of horns and causing the walls to fall down - that's a myth.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Just because YOU haven't heard of him...?

He's supposed to be a promoter, a promoter I've never heard of can't be too good.

 

[LightSpectra]

My point is that they were looking for a city, and Schliemann was inspired by the story of Troy. He hoped to find it, and at least something was found.

Congrats, you just described how literally dozens of discoveries have been made using the Septuagint.

Yes, I am aware that *some* of the places mentioned and *some* of the people and *some* of the events actually existed/happened, although not for the reasons given in the Old Testament.

how could you possibly prove that, and what does that have to do with Homer's historical knowledge based on the existence of an Anatolian hill fort?

But there are far too many that have NO proof that they ever existed or happened. As for the Egyptian chronology, I saw a documentary where archaeologists discovered some burial sites that contradicted the chronology to the extent that it had to be adjusted by several centuries, at least.

Specifics would be nice. What documentary? Which archaeologists? Which burial sites? Whose chronology -- the Septuagint's? Because it doesn't name any Pharaohs the same way modern historians do. On the other hands, lots of artifacts have independently confirmed what was only believed because it was in the Hebrew Bible to begin with. (I wrote an article about that a really long time ago if you want to see.) I mean, if you read what some historians in the 18th century wrote, you would discover that they entirely disbelieved in any Levantine coalition against the Neo-Assyrians, on the basis that peoples of that age were too barbaric to form transnatonal coalitions; but lo and behold Sennacherib's prism that was discovered in 1830.

Did I ever say I thought Schliemann had discovered the exact city the Iliad was talking about? No.

Did I ever say that I thought Jerusalem was a myth? No.

Now Joshua/his men blowing a bunch of horns and causing the walls to fall down - that's a myth.

And you're sure of that, how? You don't necessarily have to believe in the miracle of God's destruction of the walls, but it's been archaeologically confirmed that Jericho--the oldest known inhabited city--was invaded by the ancient Israelites, which is about as much as you seem to be arguing with "some guy found an Anatolian fort while looking for Troy, it means Homer wasn't lying his balls off -- UNLIKE THOSE JEWS"

 

[innonimatu]

That's a valid point.

So it's useful because it enables elites to smugly distinguish themselves from the masses? I don't get what you're saying here.

Essentially, yes. Not doing very well defending the usefulness of history, am I?

But you asked for a use. That is a use. It was, and to a lesser degree still is, extremely useful on an individual level.
And it remains useful socially for other reasons which I'm not going to repeat, because it appears I can't communicate effectively on this thing.

 

[Zelig]

Did Benzine not have structure before someone discovered it?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse about a rather clear difference in order to make a point, or if you legitimately don't understand.

What predictive quality does the knowledge that lots of meta-knowledge about humans is essentially worthless offer?

I don't get what your point in asking me the predictive qualities of various pieces of knowledge is?

If we didn't know it before, or it was lost and then rediscovered, it's new knowledge (or as good as).

Like I replied to ParkCungHee, the difference between facts about past events and knowledge about the objective nature of reality seems pretty clear to me.