How do we define a fact? That's the tricky part of the historian's trade. If "consensus" is the prime criterion for "historical facts", then historians still don't deal in them. First example:
"The October Revolution happened in November 1917."
What is "truthful" about that statement? It's called the October Revolution because of the calendar in used in Tsarist Russia, but the entire concept of historical time is already unlike how the natural sciences understand time. It also immediately betrays the "Western" perspective on those events in Russia, because we embed
their history in
our timeline.
But this is just bickering for philosophers of history. A bigger problem is the entire concept of "October Revolution" (or "French Revolution", or whatever). Was there one? Which events were part of it? How are these events related to "make" the October Revolution? Was it actually a Revolution? We might call this essentially contested colligatory concept (a proto-narrative which groups different events into one coherent whole, but people disagree on which events ought to constitute the conept) a historical "fact" based on the consensus that, yes, there was a revolution in "October".
But historians immediately disagree on what this revolution
was. So how "factual" is the stuff of historians really?
Mr F. said:
2) See above. Strange that my sister (PhD) does this sometimes. I guess she is not a real historian. Cause you said so. I find it irritating when historical facts are shat all over because I find it breaks immersion. That is life. She just notices and finds it annoying, much like my parents do when language is wrong in period dramas (They are linguists).
Personal taste, then. I find people who ***** about the littlest inconsistencies tedious. I might have overstated my position, but people who know all of how Napoleon broke fast, but are utterly unable to articulate a reasoned idea on Napoleon's influence on the 19th Century are horrible historians in my book.
Of course, if you can dazzle me with ideas, evidence and examples from your area of expertise, while also integrating these into a meaningful, coherent narrative; then you are a wonderful historian. My point was aimed at those people who fail to see the forest through the trees.
Mr F. said:
3) Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it. Uh, I do not see in any way how you can state that statement is utter bullshit. If you do not learn from the past where else are you hoping to learn from? Strange that you would study history and hold this view. But I guess my view could come down to political ideology so I will let that slide.
There are no "historical laws", therefore you cannot cut-and-paste historical "lessons" onto present concerns. All lessons from the past are the creation of the historian, not created by the past itself. All patterns (such as the "rise and fall" narrative) historians have seen in the past have a contradictory counterexample. History can contextualize present experience. It can help us understand our present condition, but not tell us how to move into the future.
Mr F. said:
4) Oh, fuck the whole hatred against social sciences. Yes, I get it, you historians are high and mighty because... What? Because you have a different method of studying the past? Because history has been studied for longer and some of the social sciences are much younger? Because a lot of what you are doing is seen as irrelevant to most non-academics? Because you rely on the studies carried out by social scientists to get your research done?
Not a hatred, thanks for the Strawman, but a slight concern on some of the epistemological claims put forth by some of the social "sciences" (they shouldn't be called "sciences", that's the main point.) Sociology, anthropology and economy are rich and rewarding disciplines, and they have brought some interesting ideas into the world, but the knowledge they produce isn't as solid as some would like to think.
"International Relations", "Political Science" and "Social Psychology" should be banished to the deepest, dirtiest pits of hell, though.
Mr F. said:
The only subject that can claim to be superior to all other subjects is mathematics. Simply because when you get down to it, everything is based on mathematics.
That's quite reductionist. I'm awaiting your mathematical exploration on the human condition.
