Lessen History

I love history. That’s why I hate historians. Rather, I hate the methodology, or lack of a methodology, with which historians approach history. Speculation and agenda dictate the history they tell without a system of peer review or accountability to the truth. Without basic understanding of sociological human behavior, and how different variables factor into decision processes, they compose their favorite guesses into works of fiction and teach it as fact. What bothers me the most is how seriously they take themselves when they lack any scientific foundation for their assertions!

In my opinion, economics is superior to other social sciences simply because of its scientific methodology, which they use even better than many scientists in the “hard sciences.” When an economist makes an argument, his assertion is “only” as good as the assumptions he makes. But his argument is therefore positive, not normative. Furthermore, economists’ arguments are rigorously and relentlessly chewed up and spit out in academic journals. Anything still standing is a certain step in a positive direction toward truth. If a point is overstated, it is rejected.

[Many “scientists” in the hard sciences throw away their methodology. For example, scientists who attribute global climate change to human factors often ignore historical temperature trends, even in recent history, thus biasing regression results. They betray their scientific claim by overstating their conclusions, by mis-specifying regressions, or by data mining to get a particular result, perhaps in order to encourage further grant support. In this way, they are on the same level as bad historians who can’t stand on solid ground.]

If I respect any historian, it is one who understands economics, and adopts this positive methodology of historical analysis. It is one who can comprehend real values for costs and benefits, real impacts of actions and foregone action, and not warp superficial facts and figures into a false form. It is one who does not run away with whimsical impressions of history, but tirelessly searches for truth. Perhaps it's too much to ask.

Instead I'll challenge the reader to be careful and critical. Don't just swallow the story like George Orwell's "dumb masses."


[The particular incident that spurred this rant came today when a historian on PBS actually recounted a private conversation between Abraham Lincoln and his wife on a particular day, as it might have gone. Only the hypothetical conversation was treated as a quotation. Several other historians made up similar hypothetical conversations from hypothetical meetings between Lincoln and Charles Darwin. The two never met. These historians took themselves so seriously, as if they were a window into the past instead of a window into a fictional distortion of the past.]