Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
JEELEN said:
Then you agree that a statement like "theoretical science is useless" is completely spurious.
Is history useless?
- Thread starter Phrossack
- Start date
Then you agree that a statement like "theoretical science is useless" is completely spurious.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
This must be some new application of logic chains which I had never hitherto encountered.
e: I guess I should expand.
It seems to me like there is no way you can call theoretical science useless because it and its various parts are indeed useful to some people, which I do not think is an unfair definition because even combustion engines are useful only to some people. A combustion engine, for instance, is of no particular use to an Amish person, or someone living in a secluded third-world society. Nothing is useful to all of the people all of the time, let alone all of the people some of the time.
It is the particular nature of usefulness according to any reasonable metric that leads me to deny that theoretical science, or history, or even astrology are useless. And as you identified, the various so-called "false" theories that you allege are useless are actually anything but: they were very useful to some people at some times.
e: I guess I should expand.
It seems to me like there is no way you can call theoretical science useless because it and its various parts are indeed useful to some people, which I do not think is an unfair definition because even combustion engines are useful only to some people. A combustion engine, for instance, is of no particular use to an Amish person, or someone living in a secluded third-world society. Nothing is useful to all of the people all of the time, let alone all of the people some of the time.
It is the particular nature of usefulness according to any reasonable metric that leads me to deny that theoretical science, or history, or even astrology are useless. And as you identified, the various so-called "false" theories that you allege are useless are actually anything but: they were very useful to some people at some times.
H4run
Deity
I think without History there will be lots of miss conception, miss interpretation. Data easily transform to legend, and legend goes to myth. While lies and gossip will easily spread without any counter. Mystification will flourish. Then peoples start to think, to record the history once again.
We need history.
Use or useless, is not have to be related with function. If that is the case, art discourse is more useless then history, what is the function of painting? what is the function of beautiful vas? compare to this history book have lots more function. But the function is inter discipline, it mix with other discipline, like sugar in a tea.
I read this debate before in preface about Jaq. Lacan book. Is history is useful or not. But really I forgot the exact flow of the argumentation because I read it years ago.
We need history.
Use or useless, is not have to be related with function. If that is the case, art discourse is more useless then history, what is the function of painting? what is the function of beautiful vas? compare to this history book have lots more function. But the function is inter discipline, it mix with other discipline, like sugar in a tea.
I read this debate before in preface about Jaq. Lacan book. Is history is useful or not. But really I forgot the exact flow of the argumentation because I read it years ago.
I'm not sure if any misreading was involved on either part. What I agreed to was that certain theories did not have any practical use (hence the difference between theoretical and practical), and that certain theories might and may have some use, either in the past or in the present. What I don't agree with is your personal interpretation of what may be considered theoretical and practical. Personally, I'd say that a theory that has no possible practical application whatsoever deserves the epithet 'theoretical'. But anyone is free to disagree with that.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Is not a theory of gravity 'theoretical?' What about a theory of magnetism? Or general relativity? And furthermore what is a 'practical application?' Of a theory that God created the world in 7 days and so on, and a combination egg-beater, which is more useful? To whom? Why?
Even things you lambast as having "no practical application whatsoever" are useful to some people.
Even things you lambast as having "no practical application whatsoever" are useful to some people.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Then you don't really have a position. :/
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Historians often create legends and myths out of data as well. See the genocide denial of Bernard Lewis and David Irving, for example.
I would hardly consider those two scumbags to be historians. In qualifications, perhaps, but not in their actions or methods. Irving made some Austrian a mighty fine prison b**** for a few months though.
H4run
Deity
Well my basic argument that historian and their history should be the agent of history demystification, demythologization etc etc (with border of course, not to change the history itself) actually base on a very simple logic.
It is start by Ibn Khaldun, I think he arguably is the first historian (or sociologist?) who actually made history as sciences with strict methodology research on using historical data.
His critic on how early Historian especially Greek Historian insert legend and myth into History that is not coherent logically and contradict with other historical data which is more valid.
Include his critic on the recklessness early muslim historian on recording Harun Ar Rasyid character that not coherent with another data which is more valid about him, also about Alexander any many other example.
His attempt effect many historian after him, the most clearer one is how he effect British Historian Toynbee.
Pardon me if I'm wrong I do know history but I see here there some peoples who actually "eat" history and have wider view than me on history as a discourse also on western history which my knowledge about it relatively moderate.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I would be willing to believe that Dachs learns his history by literally consuming books. 
H4run
Deity
I would be willing to believe that Dachs learns his history by literally consuming books.
my comment above its about him but I just don't say his name
H4run
Deity
I would be willing to believe that Dachs learns his history by literally consuming books.
I thought he is female not male, I read it in gender discussion at out of topic.
which one is right?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
He's a bloke, he just hides behind his female avatar because he is unable to grow a MAGNIFICENT EUROPEAN BEARD like me.
H4run
Deity
too bad I just trim my beard if not I can also boast up about it here
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Why just European? The Ainu have beards (and bears) at least as magnificent as anything in Europe.
H4run
Deity
Isn't it from Tintin comic?
Male. A few years ago, when the television show Avatar: The Legend of Korra was first announced, I made a commitment to only use avatars of the Avatar Korra until the show was over.
You can check out the threads on the various Washington, DC area CFC meetups for confirmation. I've also met with formerly active forum member Bill3000 in Germany.
I actually have got a midterm beard right now, but I'll probably be shaving it off soon.
