From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 23 1999 - 15:03:21 MST
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> I don't by any means wish to discourage "amateur" discussion (in fact, it's
> one of the things I value most about this forum), but history and politics
> are DEEP subjects. Yes, there's a lot of hogwash that gets propagated in
> these fields (just as there is in economics and art), but it's not all
> hogwash, by any means. For good or bad, rigorous science ISN'T yet possible
> in the study of human history, politics and law (and may never be), but that
> doesn't mean that one can't find some truth, if only a relative and
> contingent truth.
While history & politics could be subject to "rigorous science" using
computer technology and/or simulations, I question whether law, or art
could be.
It is said that the historians, "write" history and that seems true.
However, in the face of future "perfect" records of history, that becomes
false. In the face of specific and exact records of history and the
ability to process all the information, the interpretations of the
historians become much less significant. Presumably, there is some
review process by which those individuals who "accurately" condense
the information become recognized as authorities. The chaos effects
(mentioned by Damien) limits the accuracy of these in interpretations
but that is where simulations might provide missing data. With
abstract models of the human mind, historians could create "simulated"
Hitlers or Sadaams with various mental prioritizations. Those that result
in the reality we have documented would be presumed to be the most
explanatory. This extends further into politics (as we now see
where candidates don't stand for anything other than what the people
want to hear as determined by the pollsters.
Now, law and art may be much less tractable.
Law seems to have highly specific historical, cultural, technological
(e.g. evidence) and scientific (e.g. "expert" witnesses) aspects.
The variety of chaotic variables may put it beyond "rigorous science"
(though it may be entirely rational) and perhaps force it into the realm
of limited simulations.
Art, seems to have passed through the phase of "rigorous science",
where the artist was simply learning and expressing the reality
of perception (e.g. the "physics" of art)). Art seems to have
gone through some interesting "observer" stages (realism, e.g.
Thoreau or William Dean Howells in literature, or impressionist
artists in painting).
Greg/Natasha, if you read this -- have/should Law & Art be subject to
some absolutes (akin say to the Hippocratic Oath in medicine) or have
they become (and/or will they continue to be) subject to the
whims or desires of the client/purchaser? (i.e. a system in
which the value is market driven rather than "rationale acceptance"
driven?)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:50 MST