Generally a good thing to be wary of, but I don’t think it applies in this case.
In this case, I don’t think so. Since the Charlemagne, Germans divided estates between their children (instead of primogeniture, eldest child inheriting) which is why Germany would keep fragmenting even when they had good rulers. [1] [2]
Napoleon showed the need for greater security in confederation and sparked modern nationalism. That’s all largely uncontroversial. [3]
I think the best explanation of World War I’s causes—more than the alliance structure—is Great Power Rivalty; [4] see the Realist scholars in general [5] for what I think is the most convincing description of how international relations usually plays out (specifically, defensive realism). [6]
There’s also possible explanations, though in terms of looking at causality, the other major cause that’s most often advanced is the alliance structure; but that, too, was developed by Prince Metternich in response to Napoleon. [7] [8]
Then of course the Treaty of Versailles, I think everyone agrees about that being a major cause of World War II.
In any event, it took me longer to get links together than I expected, so I’ll leave on this note: you’re right be wary of just-so stories, but I’d recommend equal vigilance against whimsically throwing out a line like “just telling yourself a story”—certainly, popular media has lots of examples of that and it’s a good thing to generally be wary of, but there’s a night-and-day difference between detailed free-ranging non-biased analysis and coming up with a just-so story. Any analysis might be wrong, of course, but if so, it deserves critique rather than just a caution that it might be incorrect, no?
Everyone agrees doesn’t imply that something is true.
Just take a look at any decent science to see how hard it is to detect causality.
It’s quite easy to tell a story of how Giuliani implemented the broken windows doctrine and then crime rates fall. Then it might be that it’s all just effects of lead on children brain development. It might be some other random reason. Freakonomics did suggest that it was abortions.
Your history analysis that focuses on governments as actors completely ignores effects such as the environmental effects of lead.
There quite a lot that happened in the 19th century as far as the industrial revolution goes.
You are ignoring the meta-level. In the 19th century we got schools with compulsory education and children where taught that nation states are really important. History was told as a bunch of actions of state actors. Things happened because of ministers, princes and kings. If your goal is getting people to believe in nation states that’s useful. But that goal is different from the goal of truth.
Niall Ferguson for example manages to tell a quite different history. There’s money. The importing of good math notation, allows calculation of new forms of debt. The French Revolution happened because the French state sunk in debt. Bankers amassed a lot of money and picked winners and losers in wars.
Many times corruption wasn’t even illegal in the early 19th century. Some politicians didn’t get a salary because they made more than enough money via bribes.
it risks being one of those serious-sounding cautions that doesn’t actually throw much light on situations.
Sometimes the keys just don’t lie under the street light.
You’re falling into a trap—you’re saying things that are technically true, but are out of context. Just your opening sentence --
Everyone agrees doesn’t imply that something is true.
Of course not. But “just about everyone who has looked at it from every angle agrees the Treaty of Versailles was a major contributor to World War II” is… true.
You know? If you don’t think the Treaty of Versailles—the reparations, Germany’s poverty levels, the fact that the Nazi party had armed militia/thugs that were larger than the official German army due to the troop limitation clauses it, etc—if you don’t think that was a major contributing factor to WWII, then I don’t know what else to say to you.
Your history analysis that focuses on governments as actors completely ignores effects such as the environmental effects of lead. … You are ignoring the meta-level.
Assumption on your part which are false. Actually, nutrition levels and environmental effects are huge. It’s also worth studying.
Making points like the fact that universal education (modeled on the Prussian Education System—I’d find you links but you don’t appear to have made any effort to read the last set of links) -- this is, like, History 201 level stuff here. You’re saying things that are true but not applicable; you’re also assuming a lower level of rigor (why?) without just asking if I’ve looked into environmental effects. Come on man, this is bad form.
Sometimes the keys just don’t lie under the street light.
The witty quips are lame. Come on, dude, pseudo-wisdom slogans aren’t the way. Also picking pop narratives in the vein of Freakonomics or Gladwell type stuff to beat down is strawmanning.
The sad thing is, you actually have some valuable points and a lot of smart things to say—but witty quipping and making blind assumptions is an easy way to derail discussions.
In the field of medicine we have a lot of experience that suggests finding out causation is really hard. Anecdotal evidence frequently leads people astray. For some reason people think that just because good quality evidence isn’t available, they can get by with lower quality evidence when it comes to a domain such as history and still find out about causality.
Assumption on your part which are false. Actually, nutrition levels and environmental effects are huge. It’s also worth studying.
If nutrition levels are the main reason for nation for Bismarck’s actions, then Napoleon isn’t.
The witty quips are lame.
You assumed my intention is “shredding” light when it’s much better described as wanting to show that there’s darkness.
My concern is not so much about individual points but about the method being wrong.
Yes i wanted to especially bring Ferguson up. But I wonder how he tests his hypotheses. (I haven’t read anything yet, just had the luck to stumble upon his oeuvre on youtube—and that was that for my workplace concentration..)
Any analysis might be wrong, of course, but if so, it deserves critique rather than just a caution that it might be incorrect, no?
The thing is, the analysis you’re speaking of is not testable. There is no way to establish whether it’s true or not (and the meaning of the word “true” in this context is a complicated debate of its own).
Besides, you’re at the mercy of the authors of your sources. If an author was biased, or wanted to push a particular agenda, or was mistaken, or just deliberately lied—and you cannot reliably cross-check him—your conclusions will be bunk and you won’t know it.
But are there testable hypotheses in history? I just really want to know, because I have seen this argumentation pattern that I’d love to call ‘instant historicising’ whereas an argumenter says ′ Oh this was a totally different situation and has so nothing to do with this other situation so we shouldn’t even ever compare’ whereas my mind goes bing - .
I don’t think there are testable hypotheses in history, though there are certainly falsifiable ones in the sense that they could be shown wrong (which does NOT mean they could be proven right).
A simple example is the hypothesis that Columbus was the first European to discover the New World. It was successfully falsified by finding a Viking settlement in Newfoundland.
However if you say that, for example, the main cause of WW1 was the Great Power rivalry, well, I don’t know how that could (realistically) be falsified.
It would be easy to construct situations where historians could have opportunities to make and test hypotheses. Just find a section of history they don’t know anything about, and give them a summary of 99 years, and ask them to predict what happens in the 100th. Or give them a summary of a couple years and ask them to fill in more complex details. Or give them descriptions of what happened on either side of a year, and ask them to figure out what happens during that year. Then see if they predict accurate things.
Generally a good thing to be wary of, but I don’t think it applies in this case.
In this case, I don’t think so. Since the Charlemagne, Germans divided estates between their children (instead of primogeniture, eldest child inheriting) which is why Germany would keep fragmenting even when they had good rulers. [1] [2]
Napoleon showed the need for greater security in confederation and sparked modern nationalism. That’s all largely uncontroversial. [3]
I think the best explanation of World War I’s causes—more than the alliance structure—is Great Power Rivalty; [4] see the Realist scholars in general [5] for what I think is the most convincing description of how international relations usually plays out (specifically, defensive realism). [6]
There’s also possible explanations, though in terms of looking at causality, the other major cause that’s most often advanced is the alliance structure; but that, too, was developed by Prince Metternich in response to Napoleon. [7] [8]
Then of course the Treaty of Versailles, I think everyone agrees about that being a major cause of World War II.
In any event, it took me longer to get links together than I expected, so I’ll leave on this note: you’re right be wary of just-so stories, but I’d recommend equal vigilance against whimsically throwing out a line like “just telling yourself a story”—certainly, popular media has lots of examples of that and it’s a good thing to generally be wary of, but there’s a night-and-day difference between detailed free-ranging non-biased analysis and coming up with a just-so story. Any analysis might be wrong, of course, but if so, it deserves critique rather than just a caution that it might be incorrect, no?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia#Divided_empire.2C_after_840 [2] http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/206280?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104947106503 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire#Background [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_realism [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemens_von_Metternich [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe
Everyone agrees doesn’t imply that something is true. Just take a look at any decent science to see how hard it is to detect causality.
It’s quite easy to tell a story of how Giuliani implemented the broken windows doctrine and then crime rates fall. Then it might be that it’s all just effects of lead on children brain development. It might be some other random reason. Freakonomics did suggest that it was abortions.
Your history analysis that focuses on governments as actors completely ignores effects such as the environmental effects of lead. There quite a lot that happened in the 19th century as far as the industrial revolution goes.
You are ignoring the meta-level. In the 19th century we got schools with compulsory education and children where taught that nation states are really important. History was told as a bunch of actions of state actors. Things happened because of ministers, princes and kings. If your goal is getting people to believe in nation states that’s useful. But that goal is different from the goal of truth.
Niall Ferguson for example manages to tell a quite different history. There’s money. The importing of good math notation, allows calculation of new forms of debt. The French Revolution happened because the French state sunk in debt. Bankers amassed a lot of money and picked winners and losers in wars. Many times corruption wasn’t even illegal in the early 19th century. Some politicians didn’t get a salary because they made more than enough money via bribes.
Sometimes the keys just don’t lie under the street light.
You’re falling into a trap—you’re saying things that are technically true, but are out of context. Just your opening sentence --
Of course not. But “just about everyone who has looked at it from every angle agrees the Treaty of Versailles was a major contributor to World War II” is… true.
You know? If you don’t think the Treaty of Versailles—the reparations, Germany’s poverty levels, the fact that the Nazi party had armed militia/thugs that were larger than the official German army due to the troop limitation clauses it, etc—if you don’t think that was a major contributing factor to WWII, then I don’t know what else to say to you.
Assumption on your part which are false. Actually, nutrition levels and environmental effects are huge. It’s also worth studying.
Making points like the fact that universal education (modeled on the Prussian Education System—I’d find you links but you don’t appear to have made any effort to read the last set of links) -- this is, like, History 201 level stuff here. You’re saying things that are true but not applicable; you’re also assuming a lower level of rigor (why?) without just asking if I’ve looked into environmental effects. Come on man, this is bad form.
The witty quips are lame. Come on, dude, pseudo-wisdom slogans aren’t the way. Also picking pop narratives in the vein of Freakonomics or Gladwell type stuff to beat down is strawmanning.
The sad thing is, you actually have some valuable points and a lot of smart things to say—but witty quipping and making blind assumptions is an easy way to derail discussions.
In the field of medicine we have a lot of experience that suggests finding out causation is really hard. Anecdotal evidence frequently leads people astray. For some reason people think that just because good quality evidence isn’t available, they can get by with lower quality evidence when it comes to a domain such as history and still find out about causality.
If nutrition levels are the main reason for nation for Bismarck’s actions, then Napoleon isn’t.
You assumed my intention is “shredding” light when it’s much better described as wanting to show that there’s darkness.
My concern is not so much about individual points but about the method being wrong.
Yes i wanted to especially bring Ferguson up. But I wonder how he tests his hypotheses. (I haven’t read anything yet, just had the luck to stumble upon his oeuvre on youtube—and that was that for my workplace concentration..)
The thing is, the analysis you’re speaking of is not testable. There is no way to establish whether it’s true or not (and the meaning of the word “true” in this context is a complicated debate of its own).
Besides, you’re at the mercy of the authors of your sources. If an author was biased, or wanted to push a particular agenda, or was mistaken, or just deliberately lied—and you cannot reliably cross-check him—your conclusions will be bunk and you won’t know it.
But are there testable hypotheses in history? I just really want to know, because I have seen this argumentation pattern that I’d love to call ‘instant historicising’ whereas an argumenter says ′ Oh this was a totally different situation and has so nothing to do with this other situation so we shouldn’t even ever compare’ whereas my mind goes bing - .
I don’t think there are testable hypotheses in history, though there are certainly falsifiable ones in the sense that they could be shown wrong (which does NOT mean they could be proven right).
A simple example is the hypothesis that Columbus was the first European to discover the New World. It was successfully falsified by finding a Viking settlement in Newfoundland.
However if you say that, for example, the main cause of WW1 was the Great Power rivalry, well, I don’t know how that could (realistically) be falsified.
It would be easy to construct situations where historians could have opportunities to make and test hypotheses. Just find a section of history they don’t know anything about, and give them a summary of 99 years, and ask them to predict what happens in the 100th. Or give them a summary of a couple years and ask them to fill in more complex details. Or give them descriptions of what happened on either side of a year, and ask them to figure out what happens during that year. Then see if they predict accurate things.
I can’t see how could that possibly work in practice. At best you’ll be constructing exams for individual historians, but not tests for theories.
I see, um, some tension between the bolded parts… X-)