(no subject)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

History relies on empirical data does it not? It's not like we're intuiting history.

My understanding of empiricism is that it's based more along experiences and less along evidence-based information lines, which is my preference. It results in less biased and less ideologically-based interpretations, since experiences and anecdata aren't so much of the equation.

Obviously, it has its flaws, especially in areas with limited documentation, but no one school of thought is perfect - it's more finding the most sensible one.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

However history as I understand your conception to be still could be interpreted as empiricism since it isn't derived subjectively but intersubjectively. IE The scientific method that leads to consensus. We are not certain of what is true but we come closer and closer to better aproximating reality.

...kinda? In that empirical skills might be used to interpret history where the facts are unclear/unreliable, sure. I don't know if the scientific method analogy is apt if only because you're not experimenting with history as much as taking what's there.

My issue with empiricism is that it lends itself far too often to the "this was my experience/this is how I've done it, thus this is what's true" idea. It's the worst form of confirmation bias in a way, because it doesn't lend itself much to self-reflection, and tends to result in ego/personality results over substance, not to mention introduces a lot of identity politics in inconsistent ways.