Ernie: Suppose that history -that is, the world of events and ideas- operates
on the level of quantum mechanics. What we perceive through common sense is only the surface of reality, beneath that surface is the actual stuff of history which is, so to speak, a gigantic plate of spaghetti. And in reality there are many platters full of spaghetti, not just one. Viz, social history, history of religion, history of science, numerous national histories, history of Appalachia and history of California, etc, history of ideas, history of WWII, environmental history, history of psychology, history of foods and beverages, history of the CIA/ KGB/Mossad,etc, history of the US presidency, the whole realm of biographies, history of literature, history of the graphic arts, history of photography, history of architecture, history of music, history of agriculture, history of the movies, black history, history of immigration, American Indian history, history of newspapers, history of suffragism and the women's movement, history of education, history of Silicon Valley, history of sports, naval history, history of flight, historical geology, history of childhood in different cultures, history of the automobile, economic history, history of engineering, history of the circus, ... well, you get the idea. To put it like this: "God" is similar to a chess grand master I once saw at U of Illinois playing games against 70 top notch chess fanatics. Reshevsky won all his games except two. So, you've got to be that good. That's step #1 toward developing a Theory of History. Want a "reliable" theory of history? It must begin with the "infinite variables" problem and solve it before anything else can be nailed down. Can you take this any further? Billy ________________________________ From: Centroids <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 4:08 AM To: Billy Rojas Cc: [email protected] Subject: Theory Re: Laws of History 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Centroids <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:58 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant> en.wikipedia.org<http://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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Google Groups<http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism> groups.google.com<http://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 [https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1545098216]<http://radicalcentrism.org/> Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society<http://radicalcentrism.org/> radicalcentrism.org<http://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]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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.
