Is history useless?

[ParkCungHee]

And the samples they study are dug up by?

Coolies. I mean, if we're reducing paleontology to an appendege of Evolutionary Biology, that's basically what they are.

 

[Phrossack]

You think being a historian is useless? I'm a philosopher. I win.

Yes, you do.

Personally I would be inclined to agree with you. Yes, being a historian probably is useless from society's point of view. So are most of the humanities, if not all. So indeed are a fair few of the sciences (what's the point of palaeontologists?). But so what? You're asking this question on a gaming forum. Pretty much by definition, all of us here enjoy pursuits that are completely useless. So does almost everyone. Not everything has a use or should have a use.

Maybe. But in my opinion, enjoyable hobbies aren't necessarily the same thing as careers. History may be fun and fascinating, but I can't bear the thought of being useless.

If you really have a passion to be a historian, then you should go for it (bearing in mind that academic study of the humanities at the postgraduate level is quite possibly the worst career move anyone could make at the moment, believe me).

Well, that kinda reinforces my belief that becoming a history professor is a bad idea. But I'm not good at very many things, and I enjoy even less. This bodes very, very poorly for my future. What am I supposed to do? I could be, for example, a janitor; that would be useful, but an awful career.

Sure, years of historical research may develop some useful skills like TLO and Valka pointed out. But the other careers in which these could be useful, like law and business, take still more years of studying and learning. I don't want to be middle-aged by the time I'd be ready for a career in those. Maybe I could change course, majoring in law and minoring in history and German. But at heart I'm a history guy, and there's a huge glut of lawyers, anyway.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I could be, for example, a janitor; that would be useful, but an awful career.

Well, if you're following this logic, a janitor is only as useful as the building he cleans.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

if we're reducing paleontology to an appendege of Evolutionary Biology

So if you contribute to evolutionary theory, you're just an appendage of evolutionary biology. I'd really prefer to call Mendel the father of genetics, but if you say so.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So if you contribute to evolutionary theory, you're just an appendage of evolutionary biology.

No, if the existence of your field is justified by it's use to evolutionary biologists, like say, by gathering samples, you're an appendage of evolutionary biology.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I said that was the only justification? Where?

 

[ParkCungHee]

So fine, if you have an alternative justification for the "usefulness" of Paleontology, I would like to hear it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They're pretty good at popularizing science and engendering wonder at the natural world. People love dinosaurs. Probably some other justifications I can't think of. Maybe others can enlighten you.

 

[Dachs]

Why should anybody even care about coming up for reasons for the "usefulness" of an academic field?

 

[GoodGame]

I agree with SS, history is always at least a sociological outline for human beings. Even if a history is just a book of heraldry, and even if it contains some sketchy suppositions, it tells you something of relevance. So in effect, you can data mine history for information about humanity as much as you can get facts on societies.

 

[Dachs]

Sounds like you want a chronicler, not a historian.

 

[Phrossack]

Why should anybody even care about coming up for reasons for the "usefulness" of an academic field?

Didn't read the thread?

 

[Dachs]

Didn't read the thread?

No, I did. You've brought this up before, I've answered it before. You know where I stand.

I think you have a very unrealistic idea about what "usefulness" is. It might even be an unhistorical understanding of "usefulness". As I understand it, you're trying to define it on terms that inherently disqualify almost everything.

Lots of people, obviously, care about history. You care about history. You know enough about history to teach it to other people, and you seem to know enough about history to conduct historical research or synthesize historical thought. What else do you need?

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

Maybe others can enlighten you.

I think you might believe I'm saying Paleontology is useless. That is not my position. My point is that any time you try to justify the existence of an academic field by appealing to it's benefits outside it's field, you are already delegitimizing it.

A worthwhile field of study, be it an art, a humanity, a field of mathematics or science is self-justifying in it's value. History, and Paleontology do not need to produce material benefit for humans, because knowledge of these fields is a benefit in and of itself.

 

[Phrossack]

No, I did. You've brought this up before, I've answered it before. You know where I stand.

This thread was not directed at you. If the question irritates you so much, don't answer it.

I think you have a very unrealistic idea about what "usefulness" is. It might even be an unhistorical understanding of "usefulness". As I understand it, you're trying to define it on terms that inherently disqualify almost everything.

I don't think you do.

 

[Dachs]

This thread was not directed at you. If the question irritates you so much, don't answer it.

I was talking to SS-18 originally, not you. I didn't answer the question until you basically told me to, and I had no problem doing so once you did. Don't get all prickly, here, chief.

I don't think you do.

Don't think I do what?

How is teaching something that other people are interested in learning about not "useful"?

 

[Lord Baal]

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.

Steven Speilberg is greater than any palaeontologist in world history. He beats them at their own job, apparently.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Akira Ifukube also did a pretty good job at it.

 

[Phrossack]

I was talking to SS-18 originally, not you. I didn't answer the question until you basically told me to, and I had no problem doing so once you did. Don't get all prickly, here, chief.

With your post,

Why should anybody even care about coming up for reasons for the "usefulness" of an academic field?

you seemed to be tetchily asking, "What kind of idiot asks a question like that?" Now, it's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into it and misinterpreting your tone over the Internet, in which case I sincerely apologize, but your terse and condescending remarks afterwards aren't helping.

Don't think I do what?

How is teaching something that other people are interested in learning about not "useful"?

Now that's a fair point. If people are interested in learning about it, then maybe it's worth teaching. 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.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on history professors. I know at least some history knowledge is all but a necessity, as I mentioned earlier. Additional knowledge may be helpful as well. But I really don't think things like, say, Khushan coinage history or 19th century Peruvian upper-class marriage practices are anything more than trivia, and an awful lot of historical work is done on these piddling little things.

I'll get back to this topic later.

 

[Zelig]

Yes, being a historian probably is useless from society's point of view. [...] But so what?

I agree with this.

Learning how to write and do rigorous research via your interest in history suddenly gives it much more utility.

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.

I've heard it said that we need to know our past to be able to understand our present, I wonder what CFC thinks of this?

As for the OP's question, doesn't history grant some insights into politics, economics, and other fields concerning human interaction?

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.