| School Information System |
|
|
| Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
January 11, 2012Science EnvyHistorian David McCullough was asked by a reporter recently if he started writing any of his books with a theme. He said that when he became interested in a subject he started reading to see what he could find out about it, but he had no advance idea of what would result. Even those of our teachers who do work with students on research papers too frequently indulge in the science envy of requiring them to have a thesis. Students are asked to have some prior notion of the history they will read which they will test to see whether it is falsifiable or not. Science is rich, famous and powerful, so it is not surprising that it is envied in our culture, but it should be remembered that its practice is to reduce, as much as possible, reality to numbers. History does not lend itself well to a reduction to numbers, as it is about human beings, who also cannot very well be competently encompassed by numerical descriptions. Words are the numbers of history, and words connote as much as they denote, they contain and evoke possibility and ambiguity in ways that the number users of science sometimes find annoyingly imprecise and quite uncomfortable. The study of history should begin with curiosity about people and events: What was that person really like? How did that event come to happen and what resulted from it? These are the sort of non-thesis questions that our students of history should be asking, instead of fitting themselves out for their journey of learning about the past hampered with the straitjacket of a thesis. Serious history students are often curious over something they have read about. They want to know more, and, when they have learned quite a bit, they frequently want to tell others what they have discovered. Like scientists, they are curious, but unlike them, they are willing to live with the uncertainties that are the essential ingredients of human experience. Science has earned our admiration, but its methods are not suitable to all inquiries and we should not let envy of the success of science mislead us into trying to shrink-wrap history to fit some thesis with which students would have to begin their study of history. David McCullough has reported that when he speaks to groups very often he is asked how much time he spends doing research and how much time he spends writing. He said he is never asked how much time he spends thinking. The secondary students of history published in The Concord Review do not generally begin their work with a thesis to prove or disprove, but rather with wonder about something in history. The quality of their papers reveals that not only have they done a good deal of reading and research--if there is any difference there--but that they also have spent some serious time thinking about what they have learned, as well as how to tell someone else about it. They have inevitably encountered the complex causes of historical events (no control groups there) and the variety of forces and inclinations both within and without the historical figures they have studied. Some of these students are very good in calculus, science, and so forth, but they realize that history is a different form of inquiry and provides a non-reductionist view of the truth of human life, but one that may be instructive or inspiring in several ways. So I urge teachers of students of history, who are asking them to write serious research papers, to let them choose their own topics, based on their own wonder and curiosity about the past, and to relieve them of the science envy of a thesis requirement. Let them embark on their own study of some part of the immense and mysterious ocean of history, and help them return with a story and an understanding they can call their own and can share, through serious research papers, with other students of history.
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Comments
"Science is rich, famous and powerful, so it is not surprising that it is envied in our culture, but it should be remembered that its practice is to reduce, as much as possible, reality to numbers." I think this statement is the crux of the problem with the non-sciences. The erroneous belief (and it is a belief only) that science is about reducing reality to numbers. Subjects like history, not being subject to such reduction, allows those involved to freely opine ad nauseum, and with little effort, become "experts". David McCullough might be a different breed where the research he does is extensive, but it is also biased and incomplete, leading to efforts such as the Howard Zinn's People's History project. In the sciences, nature is the final arbiter of whether the model, mathematical or not, accurate models the real world. Proof of scientific models is conclusive; the stuff that is engineered based on scientific models work! The non-sciences are not subject to an objective arbiter; it's a matter of argument and herd mentality and ignorance of the inconvenient truths and effect of cultural myths. The rigor of the sciences is simply not present. In the non-sciences, fluff is accepted, encouraged. In the NYT article by Christopher Drew Nov 4, 2011 "Why Science Majors Change Their Minds", one paragraph is especially revealing: "The latest research also suggests that there could be more subtle problems at work, like the proliferation of grade inflation in the humanities and social sciences, which provides another incentive for students to leave STEM majors. It is no surprise that grades are lower in math and science, where the answers are clear-cut and there are no bonus points for flair. Professors also say they are strict because science and engineering courses build on one another, and a student who fails to absorb the key lessons in one class will flounder in the next." Though I disagree with the statement that answers are clear-cut (it only looks that way after decades of successful confirmation), "flair" is where much of the non-science values lie.
Post a comment
|