I find this all quite bizarre...
""History: Fiction or Science?" is the first successful attempt to transform history from fiction into a rocket science, therefore a must read for everyone who isn't entirely indifferent to human history - and possibly also for those who are. "
Why is he trying to use math (or science for that matter) to explain history? It should be the other way around.
Scientific reasoning grew out of the 18th century, it was a product of Enlightenment thinking, where an emphasis on rationality and a new-found faith in progress, efficiency, and technology all took hold of western society. If I'm not mistaken, mathematics grew in conjunction with this.
So, this guy is holding math/science to be absolute truth, and is using it to explain the development of history. But if you think about it, mathematics is just another way human's have sought to understand themselves. Science has taken the role of religon used to play... But all things considered, it really cant explain a great many ideas or phenomena.
I guess this is why psychology has always bugged me. I can't figure why we so readily accept a field that labels aspects of the human experience. Especially intelligence... how the heck can you measure intelligence? It's not a thing, it's simply a label science uses based upon its own objective criteria.
I know I'm babbling here, but I find this all very odd. We seem too anxious to accept that science can explain everything. IMHO this is a dangerous way of thinking. You could almost liken it to those who use their faith to justify heinous acts or crimes.
blah. i'll shut up now. I've completely distorted what this post was talking about. Neil Postman's "Technopoly" says all of this much better than I can.
(So does Vico)
