Big History

[Resha Caner]

What are your opinions about "big history"?

If you're unfamiliar with it, David Christian is the main proponent, and he gives a TED talk about it. It's pretty standard fair until about 12:30. Also, here is a link to one one of his papers.

Some may disagree with me, but my summary would be this. Christian is trying to change the study of history in 2 important ways. First, history has traditionally been based on documentary evidence with scientific evidence as support. He is flipping that on its head, basing history on scientific evidence with documentary evidence as support. Second, he is trying to make humans the center of cosmology again, but without God. He does this by changing the "measure" from spacetime to complexity, and then claims human society is the most complex structure in the universe. He claims the basis of this complexity is the ability to transmit collective learning via symbolic language. As such, it gives humans a means for developing that is outside biology and under our control.

Thoughts?

 

[lesliedellow]

"He is flipping that on its head, basing history on scientific evidence with documentary evidence as support."

It comes from the enthusiasm for being "scientific", even in arts subjects which are about as far removed from the methodology of the physical sciences as it is possible to be. Like logical posivitism before it, this piece of nonsense will eventually go the way of all flesh.

 

[Resha Caner]

It comes from the enthusiasm for being "scientific", even in arts subjects which are about as far removed from the methodology of the physical sciences as it is possible to be. Like logical posivitism before it, this piece of nonsense will eventually go the way of all flesh.

I don't like the philosophy that underpins it all, and I think the attempt to modify historical method, in the end, tells less rather than more. However, there are 2 things about it that pique my interest. First, why look for a reason to put humans back at the center? Second, the idea of an adaptive method that transcends biology may have some merit.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't like the philosophy that underpins it all, and I think the attempt to modify historical method, in the end, tells less rather than more. However, there are 2 things about it that pique my interest. First, why look for a reason to put humans back at the center? Second, the idea of an adaptive method that transcends biology may have some merit.

Language is what gave us the ability firstly to reason, secondly to think in abstract terms, and eventually to get science underway. Whether or not that is adaptive in the evolutionary sense is, I would say, highly questionable. After all, it has given us one means of bringing about our own extinction, and other means of doing so are probably on the way.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether or not that is adaptive in the evolutionary sense is, I would say, highly questionable.

I don't think Christian was trying to say that. In fact, he may have meant the opposite - that it is a distinct adaptive method apart from evolution, even if it might bear some similarities. It was from this forum that I expected such conclusions to be drawn, as my experience is that some see evolution in everything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What are your opinions about "big history"?

If you're unfamiliar with it, David Christian is the main proponent, and he gives a TED talk about it. It's pretty standard fair until about 12:30. Also, here is a link to one one of his papers.

Some may disagree with me, but my summary would be this. Christian is trying to change the study of history in 2 important ways. First, history has traditionally been based on documentary evidence with scientific evidence as support. He is flipping that on its head, basing history on scientific evidence with documentary evidence as support. Second, he is trying to make humans the center of cosmology again, but without God. He does this by changing the "measure" from spacetime to complexity, and then claims human society is the most complex structure in the universe. He claims the basis of this complexity is the ability to transmit collective learning via symbolic language. As such, it gives humans a means for developing that is outside biology and under our control.

Thoughts?

Yeah, my thoughts are that he's just trying to dredge out again the ol' humanist byline, but with an attempt to infuse it with a 21st century update.

As far as I'm concerned, ALL historical, narrative writing is representational in nature (to varying degrees, of course), and can not be reduced down to a true science. At best, the writing of history and the attending theories of historiography with which historians have to work will remain a kind of "soft science," like the fields of Sociology and/or Psychology. David Christian can try to innovate all he wants to, but all that I see his effort likely doing in the end is to skew the idea of objectivity into a different kind of philosophical bias, resulting in yet another shade of praxis for the philosophy of history. Whoopee!!! Moreover, it seems to me that, for all his attempt to explain his position, he's simply suggesting the importance of multi-disciplinary expansion in the field of history writing; a suggestion that isn't new.

I think I'll stick with Jon A. Levisohn on this kind of thing:

Levisohn, J. A. (2010). Negotiating historical narratives: An epistemology of history for history education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(1), 1-21.

2PhiloVoid

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't think Christian was trying to say that. In fact, he may have meant the opposite - that it is a distinct adaptive method apart from evolution, even if it might bear some similarities. It was from this forum that I expected such conclusions to be drawn, as my experience is that some see evolution in everything.

Before you can talk meaningfully about something being "adaptive", you need to answer the questions:

1.) Adapt to what?
2.) What would be the test of how well something has adapted.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I'll stick with Jon A. Levisohn on this kind of thing:

I didn't read the entire article, just the abstract, but it sounds fairly standard. Do you think Levisohn is suggesting something new?

 

[Resha Caner]

1.) Adapt to what?
2.) What would be the test of how well something has adapted.

As I said, the suggested measure was complexity, defined as energy flow through a control volume. Quoting from Christian:
Given the difficulties of pinning down the notion of complexity, it should be no surprise to find that measuring levels of complexity is tricky. Nevertheless, Eric Chaisson has proposed an interesting approach to the problem. Chaisson argues that the more complex an object is, the denser the energy flows that pass through it. If it takes energy to create and sustain complex, far-from-equilibrium systems, it makes sense to suppose that the more complex a phenomenon is, the more energy it will need to sustain its high level of complexity.

As for answering "adapt to what?" I would say it's not what but how. The collective learning of humans far surpasses what any one individual could accomplish, and we have the ability to communicate that collective learning through time and space - something we've never seen any other species do.

 

[lesliedellow]

As for answering "adapt to what?" I would say it's not what but how. The collective learning of humans far surpasses what any one individual could accomplish, and we have the ability to communicate that collective learning through time and space - something we've never seen any other species do.

It is implicit in the meaning of the verb that adaptation must be adaptation to something.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't read the entire article, just the abstract, but it sounds fairly standard. Do you think Levisohn is suggesting something new?

Hey Resha,

I'm only referring to Levisohn to make it clear as to what I'm "sticking" to; I think his technical break down of the nature of historical narrative and the act of undertaking historiography is more cogent than what Christian brings to the table in either his TED talk or in his paper. But, that's just my opinion.

I'm just not that impressed with David Christian's approach. I do agree with him that World History would be better served by trying to make it a more multi-disciplinary practice, but he seems to want to place the concept of cosmic complexity as a centralizing source for the context of the World history writing he proposes. I'm not seeing how this concept will necessarily augment anyone's praxis in historiography; in fact, I think that although complexity definitely is an important point to incorporate, it is still just one concept among many considerations that can be used as a contextualizing element in World History.

Anyway, I'm no expert, and maybe I'm missing something grand about his theory.

To what extent do you think his theory is applicable or helpful, Resha?

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't read the entire article, just the abstract, but it sounds fairly standard. Do you think Levisohn is suggesting something new?

I you're referencing Levisohn's article here, I'd have to say that the abstract doesn't do it justice.

 

[Resha Caner]

To what extent do you think his theory is applicable or helpful, Resha?

In terms of historiography it's not helpful at all. But I don't think it's fair to say it's everything or nothing. He stated something I found clever. Whether he originated the idea or not, I heard it first from him and so give credit where it's due. That's all.

Given the ubiquitous references to biological evolution in post-modern society, I found it refreshing to see the kernel of an idea for an adaptive mechanism that stands apart.

 

[Papias]

First, history has traditionally been based on documentary evidence with scientific evidence as support. He is flipping that on its head, basing history on scientific evidence with documentary evidence as support.

History has traditionally been about trying to find out what happened in the past using the best tools available. Until recently, the best (only) tools available were written records. Because science has given us so many powerful tools, many of those tools can be as good or better than written records. It depends on the specific example being looked at, but today, just as in the past, any real historian is simply trying to find out what happened in the past using the best tools available.

I don't think he's "flipping" anything, any more than a modern historian getting to his office in a car is "flipping" the traditional way that historians got to their offices 200 years ago, by horse. It's simply a matter of using what available tools are best for the job. In a lot of cases, especially where there is poor or no written records, other methods are the best there is.

Second, he is trying to make humans the center of cosmology again, but without God. He does this by changing the "measure" from spacetime to complexity, and then claims human society is the most complex structure in the universe.

The "measure" wasn't "spacetime" 300 years ago - after all, "spacetime" is a pretty modern term. It seems like the measure in the past was "complexity" as much as it is today - after all, what put humans at the purported "top" of the great ladder of being? Language did then too. Anyway, I'm not sure he's all that focused on humans being the center. The writings of The Dark Lord (Joel Primack) are more clearly about that.

Language.... Whether or not that is adaptive in the evolutionary sense is, I would say, highly questionable. After all, it has given us one means of bringing about our own extinction, and other means of doing so are probably on the way.

Before you can talk meaningfully about something being "adaptive", you need to answer the questions:

1.) Adapt to what?
2.) What would be the test of how well something has adapted.

I think biology has clear definitions about 1. and 2.
1. - Adapt to the current environment.
2. - the number of offspring that survived to have offspring. That's the clear definition of fitness, and has been for 150 years.

So applying that to language:
Does (did) language allow our ancestors have more kids that survived in the environment of the past 50,000 or so years? I think that's an obvious Yes. Language enabled people to work together to survive and give us the booming population we have today.

Language.... After all, it has given us one means of bringing about our own extinction, and other means of doing so are probably on the way.

But that's completely irrelevant to whether or not language was adaptive and selected for. natural selection only looks at the past, after all - so something that is very adaptive, and strongly selected for, can be the direct cause of extinction in the future. Of the many examples - in a dry year, big beaks in Galapagos finches help a lot, and are selected for - and then in a wet year those very same beaks are a big disadvantage, and cause a lot of death.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[lesliedellow]

I think biology has clear definitions about 1. and 2.
1. - Adapt to the current environment.
2. - the number of offspring that survived to have offspring. That's the clear definition of fitness, and has been for 150 years.

Except that he doesn't appear to be talking about biology.

 

[Resha Caner]

The "measure" wasn't "spacetime" 300 years ago - after all, "spacetime" is a pretty modern term.

I used a modern word, but was referring to an ancient idea that man is the geographic center of the universe, and that God began time for the purpose of man inhabiting it. Current science doesn't hold that view, and as a result man lost his place at the center. I think Christian's humanist philosophy hopes to restore that.

History has traditionally been about trying to find out what happened in the past using the best tools available. Until recently, the best (only) tools available were written records. Because science has given us so many powerful tools, many of those tools can be as good or better than written records. It depends on the specific example being looked at, but today, just as in the past, any real historian is simply trying to find out what happened in the past using the best tools available.

Historians do more than just uncover past facts. Regardless, for the historian science has always been, as you say, a tool - even moreso, a secondary tool. I think it will remain that way even though Christian tries to make it more (per the moniker "Big History"). I've seen some examples of science prompting some unique historical hypotheses, but it remains that in the absence of documentary evidence we (ironically) have very little to say about the past. In most history books, the period prior to the invention of writing takes up about a paragraph ... maybe a page or two ... in contrast to the millions and millions of words written about the years from 1939 to 1945.

 

[MrSpikey]

It is implicit in the meaning of the verb that adaptation must be adaptation to something.

The paper addresses adaptation (a noun, not a verb) in a number of different ways - starting from biological adaptation and Darwinism, he moved on to the environmental adaption of individuals during their lifetime, for example, animals learning where to hunt to find a rich supply of food, where to avoid to minimize the risk of predation, etc. He then contrasts this with the human ability to preserve such knowledge through communication - each new generation of animals must adapt (or not) anew, whereas common knowledge can be shared across generations of humans.

This latter form of adaptation is what he is mainly referring to in the paper, to answer your first question.
As for your second question, in the context of non-humans and humans, his premise of shared vs individual environmental adaptation is hard to disagree with. I wasn't so convinced by some of his later arguments when trying to apply this to a more universal concept, but his paper was qualitative not quantitative, so expect opinion more than explicit benchmarks.

 

[Papias]

I used a modern word, but was referring to an ancient idea that man is the geographic center of the universe, and that God began time for the purpose of man inhabiting it.

Yes.

Current science doesn't hold that view, and as a result man lost his place at the center.

Yes.

I think Christian's humanist philosophy hopes to restore that.

Maybe. I think David Christians approach applies to modern versions of many religions, including Christianity. Does it hope to restore "Humans as center"? I don't think so - at least not to that extent - but I do agree that it feels like it moves humans up from complete insignificance, and hence, in the direction you are describing.

Historians do more than just uncover past facts.

Oh? Like what, in particular?

for the historian science has always been, as you say, a tool - even moreso, a secondary tool.

As I pointed out, the only time it was a "secondary tool" was when the there weren't relevant scientific techniques. That's like saying that a car is always "secondary transportation" because sometimes an airplane works better, such as when crossing oceans. Very often, the car is the best tool, and at those times, it's not secondary to anything. The same holds for science.

I've seen some examples of science prompting some unique historical hypotheses, but it remains that in the absence of documentary evidence we (ironically) have very little to say about the past.

Such a naive statement could only be made by a person completely ignorant of actual historical study, as well as the whole fields of physics, archeology, dendrochronology, and more. Very often, the most historical information gained is from science, and not from written records, and in case after case, we have volumes of information about history, little to none of which is from written records.

Before I give just one of many examples, may I recommend some historical classes on audio that are relevant? Here they are: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/search/sort-by/relevance/sort-direction/desc/mode/list?q=archaeology

One example, of hundreds out there:

In April 1991, two Alpine hikers stumbled across the well-preserved body of a Copper Age hunter half-buried in a glacier on the border between Italy and Austria. This accidental discovery, nicknamed Ötzi the Iceman, possessed a trove of invaluable information about the origins of prehistoric people. Standard scientific archaeological techniques revealed many interesting aspects of Ötzi's life—including his diet and his dress— and physics gave more microscopic clues; clues that, decades earlier, might have remained hidden. The strontium-to-lead ratios in Ötzi's teeth matched the ratios found in the Eisack Valley, northeast of present-day Bolzano, Italy, suggesting that was where he spent his childhood. Varying ratios of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 in Ötzi's bones indicated that he spent much of his later life at higher altitudes. And the presence of excess copper and arsenic in Ötzi's hair suggested that he played an active role in copper smelting.​

In most history books, the period prior to the invention of writing takes up about a paragraph ... maybe a page or two ...

That depends on the book, and more to the point, is irrelevant anyway, since much of the information across the whole time span is from science, not written records. Carbon 14 testing alone has revolutionized our historical records, as have too many scientific techniques to list here (though I encourage finding out about them in the classes above).

in contrast to the millions and millions of words written about the years from 1939 to 1945.

A lot of that is because we know more details of WWII, and a lot of that is because there were more changes to the world order during WWII. After all, people spent literally millions of years as hunter-gatherers with little change. Nonetheless, I'm not sure your claim is even true - the sum of writing about the time prior to writing could well be more than all the factual stuff written about WWII.

Except that he doesn't appear to be talking about biology.

Yes, you were talking about biology. You wrote:

...Whether or not (language ) is adaptive in the evolutionary sense is, I would say, highly questionable.

"adaptive in the evolutionary sense" is explicitly biology. That's the central, unifying idea in biology.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, you were talking about biology. You wrote:



"adaptive in the evolutionary sense" is explicitly biology. That's the central, unifying idea in biology.

In Christ-

Papias

I may have had biology in mind in post #4, but then in post #5 the OP said he didn't think that biology was what was in mind. So in post #7 I said that, in that case, what is meant by adaptation needed more precise definition.

 

[Papias]

I may have had biology in mind in post #4, but then in post #5 the OP said he didn't think that biology was what was in mind. So in post #7 I said that, in that case, what is meant by adaptation needed more precise definition.

Yep, that makes sense. Biology has a definition for adaptation, but if it's biology, then we don't have a definition.

In Christ-

Papias