In a long-winded way, Diamond is arguing for history to
develop itself, and be taken seriously, as a science. This, he states, will be of
benefit to us because it will tell us how we got "here", and where we might be
going.
Diamond specifically compares history to sciences
such as astronomy, in which the scientist is limited to observational data and cannot
conduct laboratory tests, or to the epidemiologist, who is prohibited from experimenting
on humans in ways which would harm them or be otherwise morally objectionable. Diamond
sees history not as a collection of facts, but as a series of simultaneously occurring
experiments which can be analysed for broad patterns and outcomes dependent upon the
variables.
Diamond also makes several (unsubstantiated)
suggestions that practitioners and advocates of the "hard sciences", such as physics,
"look down" on, or are "ignorantly disdainful" of those which are less empirical, such
as his own fields. This is telling because many of Diamond's critics point specifically
to his lack of experience in the fields he attempts to incorporate into his arguments,
and the way his evidence conforms to his conclusions rather than the reverse, suggesting
that Diamond is attempting to discredit his critics as "not real scientists", or at
least as insufferable ideologues. This should especially be taken into consideration
depending upon whether one views Diamond as an empirical anthropologist or as a book
salesman.
No comments:
Post a Comment