> I'd still like to think that there are some laws of history. > Maybe what we really need is:
A Theory is History Laws of Nature are very 19th Century; a single counterexample destroys their value. Theories on the other hand get stronger by responding to anomalies. E Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 18, 2018, at 09:40, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ernie: > > I'd still like to think that there are some laws of history. Daniel Bell > once said > > that there are "structural certainties" that you can reply on. For example, > > one third of the Senators will be up for election in 2020. If you are a > decent\ > > demographer you can look at population data (% of seniors, youth, Latinos, > etc) > > and you should be able to predict how various races will go. And that is true > > to a point. But this still isn't really a law -except in a weak sense. > > What happens if a very virulent strain of influenza hits the country > > and half the Senate dies? What happens if there is a war in the Mid East? > > What happens if the economy goes into orbit because of a computer > breakthrough? > > > > Toynbee is still useful and always relevant but even his challenge and > response theory > > is a generalization moreso than a law in a strict sense. > > > > As good as it gets still seems to be Mark Twain's observation that history > doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it sure does rhyme. > > There simply are too many variables, viz, an almost infinite number of > variables. > Physics is amenable to dissection through math because, as bad as it can get, > you still aren't dealing with a million variables. How on earth do you > deal with the "infinite variable" problem? > > That, Horatio, is the rub. > > Remember what Einstein once said to Keynes, to paraphrase, > "I can never be an economist, its too complicated." > > > Take my word, if it is really done right, history is even worse. > I mean, you need to (almost literally) remember everything > in order to say anything. > > Which may help explain why historians usually get better with age- > in contrast to physicists who, if they do not achieve some great discovery > in their 20s probably will never become a Great Physicist. In physics, > so I take it, you need high order skills at math plus mental agility > that is characteristic of youth, not age. In history, while it is good > to get better at your craft as you age, there is the slight problem > that eventually you kick the bucket. :-( > > That sort of puts a crimp in one's career plans :-( > > > Billy :-( > > > > > From: Centroids <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Billy Rojas > Subject: Re: [RC] F= M+A+ Junk ? @#% +22+ZX=wth etc & so forth > > So the only Law of History is that there are no laws of history? > > Is there even a Theory of History? > > Is Toynbee completely forgotten/scorned? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 18:17, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ernie: >> >> I like "fudge factor;" it is also used in architecture to accommodate >> >> small discrepancies in calculations that, in practical terms, don't mean too >> much. >> >> Like being off 1/64th of an inch when the job allows for, say, wood >> shrinkage of 1/32 of an inch. >> >> >> >> Clearly the fudge factor can apply to other problems, like generalizations >> about history. >> >> >> Think I'll stick with Professor Borrowdale on the usefulness of the junk >> concept >> at least in some cases, those that don't ruffle the feathers of people >> in the physics community ;-) >> >> About laws of history, I should tell you that they beat this idea out of our >> heads >> in history grad school. I mean, who doesn't want to come up with a nice >> glossy law of >> how history works? I sure do, and way back when it was sort of a passion. >> But that was before my MA program and everyone got serious about >> what will fly and what will not. >> >> "So you think you have discovered a law of history, do you?" >> "Yes, sir, its all written out here for you to review." >> "Dammit, how many times do I have to tell you that there are NO laws of >> history?" >> "But sir, if you will just look at my paper..." >> "I don't have time for such nonsense." >> >> At which the professor takes out a long sturdy stick and says, "assume the >> position." >> >> WHACK. >> >> "Do you still believe there are laws of history?" >> "Well, yes, because..." >> >> WHACK WHACK WHACK >> >> "Now do you still believe there are laws of history?" >> >> >> "Owww, that is painful, owww, no sir, not any more." >> (cry, cry, cry) >> >> >> >> Maybe this explains things better.... >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Centroids <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:58 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Billy Rojas >> Subject: Re: [RC] F= M+A+ Junk ? @#% +22+ZX=wth >> >> Hi Billy, >> >>> I do think that the "junk" metaphor is useful, but technically you may well >>> be quite right. >>> >> Actually, the more technical term is “fudge factor.” :-). That is an extra >> term added to your formal theory in order to match reality. >> >> In fact Einstein incorrectly added one himself: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant >> Cosmological constant >> en.wikipedia.org >> In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek >> capital letter lambda: Λ) is the energy density of space, or vacuum energy, >> that... >> >> Also, it IS often quite useful to rewrite equations using “relativistic >> corrections” that are small perturbations against the classical version. >> >> So your instincts weren’t that far off. Just don’t call them junk. :-) >> >> E >> >>> When it comes to physics you lost me around paragraph #2, >>> >>> so I don't know nearly enough to tell if there really is or is not some >>> "junk" >>> >>> to allow for in the science involved. But the value of the "junk hypothesis" >>> >>> in the social sciences is that it makes us -your favorite word- humble >>> >>> when thinking we can devise laws of history when all that is currently >>> >>> possible are generalizations or maybe (maybe) weak laws that rest upon >>> >>> strong generalizations. >>> >> -- >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community >> <[email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Google Groups >> groups.google.com >> Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and >> email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations. >> >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org >> >> Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society >> radicalcentrism.org >> A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society >> >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community >> <[email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
