iSoul Time has three dimensions

Tag Archives: History

Synchronic and diachronic time

Synchrony or diatopy means 3D space with simultaneous events in order of increasing time. Space-time is synchronic or diatopic.

Diachrony means 3D time with simulocuous events in order of decreasing distance. Time-space is diachronic.

Chronicles and histories are diachronic. Models and theories are synchronic or diatopic.

Knowledge of the distances between objects is important in order to understand their motions. Knowledge of the modal durations between subjects is important in order to understand their movements. In history travel time matters more than travel distance. In science travel distance matters more than travel time.

For the study of history, 3D time is more significant then 3D space. What matters more is not the distance between places, but the transit time. The reason is that time is the measure of effort to go from one place to another.

Read more →

Science or stories

Science has no stories. Stories have characters, plots, and narratives. Science has data, hypotheses, postulates, and theories. Science and stories are different. They should be kept separate.

Stories can refer to science or be about scientists, but that is not part of science. Science can refer to stories or collect data from stories, but that is not storytelling.

Evolutionary stories are not part of science. Evolution without stories is part of science. But evolution without stories is variation and adaptation.

The science community and its boosters confuse science and stories. They are different and should be kept separate.

History is a chronicle, a narrative, a story. But history is not science.

The Bible is a story of stories. It includes chronicles, poetry, parables, and letters. The Bible may refer to science, but the Bible is not part of science.

The stories of the Bible are not inconsistent with science as long as science is not confused with stories. If science is confused with stories, then there may be inconsistencies with the Bible. The answer is to stop confusing science and stories.

Biblical creationists follow the science community and its boosters in confusing science and stories. Creationism is about history and theology, not science.

Science or stories: focus on one or the other but don’t confuse them.

Beginning of the American revolution

The following chronology is based on the Timeline of the Revolutionary War and other sources.

French & Indian War 1754-1763 (part of the European war called the Seven Years War) – English victory was at the cost of a large debt. “It was that debt that caused the escalation of tensions leading to the Revolutionary War.”

Proclamation of 1763 – King George III’s proclamation that closed off the frontier to colonial expansion, which was resented by the colonists, who felt penned in on the East coast.

Sugar Act of 1764 (The American Revenue Act) – An act of Parliament that reduced the rate of tax on molasses and added other taxes, while Lord Grenville took measures that the duty be strictly enforced. This disrupted the colonial economy by reducing the markets to which the colonies could sell, and the amount of currency available to them for the purchase of British manufactured goods.

Currency Act of 1764 – An act of Parliament that prohibited the issue of bills of credit, which made it more difficult for colonists to pay off their debts to Great Britain.

Stamp Act of 1765 – An act of Parliament that imposed many taxes to pay Great Britain’s debt for the French & Indian War. It was their first serious attempt to assert governmental authority over the colonies.

Quartering Act of 1765 – An act of Parliament that required colonial governments to provide and pay for feeding and sheltering any troops stationed in their colony.

Read more →

Interesting universe

This post continues a series on history and science, see here and here.

The development of the comparative method in linguistics led to the genealogy of languages in the 19th century. This diachronic approach was largely abandoned in the 20th century with the rise of synchronic theories. In short, linguistics pivoted from history to science.

Modern science is basically synchronic, that is, spatially broad within a narrow time period. This arises most commonly with empirical methods, which can range throughout the earth and beyond but focus on contemporary observations. While it is possible to focus on a different time period, the common procedure is simply to assume that the past is like the present. We might call this the boring universe postulate: nothing significantly new ever happens.

Such an anachronistic method is anathema in the discipline of history, that is, diachrony. One cannot assume the past is like the present without evidence from past sources. Moreover, significant events are pivotal for history, unlike science. It is difference, not similarity, that drives history.

History is basically unpredictable, no matter how much minor predictions can be made. The empirical sciences extract what can be predicted from empirical sources but leave the unpredictable out, relegated to noise or chance. It would be better for the sciences to leave the unpredictable to history than to sideline it as if it were unimportant.

Historical science or scientific history are oxymorons. They seem to mean a science of history. The search for a theory of history was a focus of the 19th century with uniformitarianism and Darwinism (and Marxism for some) providing the top candidates. But the project is misguided: it would mean history in a boring universe, which would be history without meaningful history.

The history of the universe or nature or life are within the domain of history. Science is able to assist but it is presumption to substitute a boring universe for the real one. The universe, nature, and life are too interesting and meaningful for that.

Ordering events

There are many ways to order events. One way is by time. Events happening at the same time are put in an equivalence class, which is then ordered from the earliest time to the latest time. History is usually ordered this way. With the advent of mechanical clocks and watches, modern people typically experience events as ordered by time.

Note: Events ordered by time make up a chronology. In a chronology time is employed to order events. But a chronology should not be confused with time itself. Chronology is an application of time.

Another way to order events is by distance from a particular location, such as a city center. Events happening at the same distance from the city center are put in an equivalence class, which is then ordered from the shortest distance to the longest distance (or vice versa). Commuting events might be ordered this way. Ancient literature such as the Bible exemplifies the place of events being as much or more significant than their time.

Another way to order events is by their importance. One might start with their wedding, then order other events by their significance: having children, remodeling a house, going on a special vacation, etc. Minor events would come last in this scheme. That could be a way of organizing an album of photographs.

The order of events is the sequence of events as they occur in a story. Storytellers – authors, playwrights, screenwriters, speakers, etc. – have many ways to order events. For example:

In J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers, the narrative switches regularly from events occurring in one location (Gondor) to events occurring almost simultaneously in another (Rohan). Because to offer a play-by-play juxtaposition of events in these two locations with chronological integrity would demand inscrutable dialogue volleying, Tolkien orders these two narrative segments by alternating chapter. Narrative Wiki

Flashbacks fill in the audience with the backstory. Some stories begin with the end and then recount the events leading up to it. Or a story can be retold by different authors in a sequence of stories, as with the four gospel stories in the Bible.

The order of events is not the same as time, although time is often used to order events.

Science and history again

To some extent the sciences of society and history can be pursued as if they were natural sciences. For example, groups of people exhibit some characteristics of natural objects, and so reflect physics to some extent.

On the other hand, the physics of social beings is different in a complementary way from the physics of natural bodies. That is because social beings have purposes and plans. These can be accommodated within natural science only by including formal and final causes to some extent.

But knowledge of society and history are different from knowledge of the physical world. Their focus is different and the result is more likely to be a narrative than a theory.

The natural sciences emphasize quantities and have an over-riding principle of qualitative parsimony, often called Occam’s Razor. The sciences of society and history have a complementary principle of quantitative parsimony. This is seen in the increasing distinctions and qualities of society and history that resist generalization and lead to greater particularization.

While it would be best to have a balanced methodology of qualitative and quantitative parsimony, it may work well to have a dialectic of methodologies between two schools or disciplines, one with qualitative and the other quantitative parsimony. Then they can critique each other and seek to converge at a common solution.

Distinguishing history and science

The post continues several posts on history and science such as here and here.

All histories are part of the humanities, which are separate from the sciences. There is no scientific history or historical science – that would be like a round square.

A purported scientific history or historical science is either science and not history or history and not science. A scientist who writes histories is to that extent an historian, not a scientist.

Histories are focused on significant dissimilarities, discontinuities, and particulars. Sciences are focused on significant similarities, continuities, and universals.

Histories are diachronic or diatopic; that is, they are about a sequence of events through time or through space. A history takes a particular place or subject and follows them through a timeline; or it takes a particular subject and follows them through a locusline, as with a journey. Histories are written as narratives.

Sciences are synchronic or syntopic; that is, they are about a particular time or place or object. A science takes a particular period or object and explores it in 3D space; or it takes a particular place and explores it in 3D time, as with a field trip. Sciences are written as theories.

Read more →

Authority of the Bible

The authors of the texts that later became books of the Bible certainly did not think they were writing parts of Scripture. Yet they certainly did think they were writing texts with authority for a particular group of people at a particular time. Others realized later that the texts had a wider audience and a higher authority. In that sense, the various writings became the Scriptures over time.

One of the continuing questions then is to what extent the words written for a particular audience are authoritative for other audiences. This is commonly expressed in the question as to whether every word and sentence is “inspired” but that leads to side matters about theories of inspiration. It is better to focus on the authority of the texts.

The truth of the Scriptures follows from its authority but its authority also presupposes its truth. Those who first recognized their authority had to recognize their truth, too. The two cannot be separated.

The question then is how far down does the authority and truth of the Scriptures go? That is, are each paragraph, each sentence, each word authoritative? Are the grammatical mistakes authoritative? The apparent inconsistencies? The language if not the concepts of archaic knowledge?

It’s best to start with the literary styles and conventions of the time and place of writing. These are not those of today, and are not the way “we” would write. But we should read them in context. Variations in names and spellings were common. Different authors writing of the same events may have a different purpose and take on them, and may adopt a different chronology.

All these are not “mistakes” or “errors” – they are differences, between them or between us and them or between them and other sources. So a correct understanding requires some historical background.

This goes all the way down to the words and grammar. The languages and usages are different from ours. The idioms and forms of expression are different. Some words are obscure. Some grammar is nonstandard. The writer may be writing in a foreign language they don’t understand all that well.

These are all cautions, not criticisms. They do not undermine the authority of the Bible but qualify its interpretation. There is no reason that the authority does not go all the way down.

Some will consider this excessive. After all, what does it matter if a few geographical details are mistaken? Or if some names aren’t right? It’s not for me to say how much it matters because what really matters is whether the Bible is authoritative. If it is, then it’s not for us to limit how far down that authority goes. The text is what we have, and the text is authoritative.

Singular and regular

There is a basic distinction between what is singular, unique, non-repeating and what is regular, usual, natural. The latter is the domain of science, both natural and social science, whose premise is that if something repeats, it is characteristic of the way things are. What if something does not repeat? Then science cannot deal with it, except perhaps as an outlier that becomes a footnote or is simply removed.

History is different. It is the singular, the unique that stands out and needs explaining. Why did someone not do the culturally usual thing? Why did the singular characters of history arise instead of the many other common characters? Why did war break out here but not there or there?

History goes beyond science to investigate singular people and events. In fact, these are the most important things about history. The common appearances of the sun and moon, the regularity of the tides and seasons, the life-cycles of countless humans and other organisms are not the core of history.

What’s history is what happens that’s different. As the old newspaper line has it, “When a dog bites a man, that is not news. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.”

Some people say that anything that is not natural is “supernatural”. That implies it must be something beyond or against nature, but that is not necessarily so. Something unexpected is not necessarily beyond or against nature. It may be that a unique set of circumstances called for a unique response. It may be that an unusual individual rose to the top at a unique time in history.

A balanced knowledge of reality requires taking into account both sides, the singular and the regular. If we only look to science, we will miss the singular things. If we only look to history (or the news), we will miss the regular things. Science needs history and history needs science. A science or history that monologues is deficient. They need to dialogue to be balanced.

Luther at 500

October 31, 2017, is the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Phillip Cary’s excellent article in First Things places this in perspective. While the full article is behind a paywall, here are some excerpts:

It all did start with the ninety-five theses, in a sense. Luther probably did not actually nail them to the church door—at least no one at the time tells us so. And if he did, it was not in anger or protest against the church. He was trying to arrange an academic discussion, and evidently that’s where the bulletin board was. What we do know is that he mailed them off to his archbishop, together with a treatise on indulgences and a cover letter dated October 31, 1517, so that is the date remembered as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

What Luther did not know at the time is that the pope and the archbishop were the ones profiting from this merchandise, each claiming half of the take. So it is not surprising that events took a turn he did not anticipate. Within five years, this intensely obedient monk had concluded that obedience to God precluded obedience to the pope, and a schism in the Church followed.

Read more →