11-24-2006, 06:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 24 2006, 11:46 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 24 2006, 11:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->karthiksri, there are two natures/methods of historical study (broadly, AFAIK) - Analytic history and Speculative (and a variant, counterfactual) history. If analytic history is what you want, that is one story. I agree, there is use and abuse of history, there is a definite need to get to the bottom of that. No question about it. If it is Speculative, then, any theory/scenario goes without some boundaries, and/or by default gets driven by ideologies.
[right][snapback]61263[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this the classic way of putting the blame on the tool rather than the user.
Sir, you tend to give terms to everything. Perhaps that can lead to stereotyping things. But using your terms Analytical and Speculative; In the wiki link on counterfactual it is mentioned that it is based on reasoning. So counterfactual or analytical are basically logical tools. Basically, I guess, we understand, that in history we have to interpret facts and in order to remove inherent biases we would like to make the interepretation as much close to exact as possible (though we can never be exact). To do that and to get at the bottom of the truth, we have to use some reasoning tools. So there's no point blaming the tools. Ideologies are the preserve of the people who interpret, not the methodologies used to interpret. So if we all in this forum believe that we can interpret the issue at hand purely on basis of logical reasoning, trying as much as possible not to bring our ideologies into it, then we can start using these tools. One way of nullifying the idealogy effect is to put all our earlier conclusions to the backburner and looking at the issue at hand afresh and being open to whatever conclusions come out of the reasoning process.
[right][snapback]61263[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this the classic way of putting the blame on the tool rather than the user.
Sir, you tend to give terms to everything. Perhaps that can lead to stereotyping things. But using your terms Analytical and Speculative; In the wiki link on counterfactual it is mentioned that it is based on reasoning. So counterfactual or analytical are basically logical tools. Basically, I guess, we understand, that in history we have to interpret facts and in order to remove inherent biases we would like to make the interepretation as much close to exact as possible (though we can never be exact). To do that and to get at the bottom of the truth, we have to use some reasoning tools. So there's no point blaming the tools. Ideologies are the preserve of the people who interpret, not the methodologies used to interpret. So if we all in this forum believe that we can interpret the issue at hand purely on basis of logical reasoning, trying as much as possible not to bring our ideologies into it, then we can start using these tools. One way of nullifying the idealogy effect is to put all our earlier conclusions to the backburner and looking at the issue at hand afresh and being open to whatever conclusions come out of the reasoning process.