Essentially we might just be getting at the following: Science textbooks are filled with theories named after people. Famous discoveries that allow us students to know things in chemistry and history are attributed to people. The laws of chemistry and physics that are "pre-existing" are made known to us through discovery. Historical events on the other hand have been chronicled and chronicles themselves can be incomplete and usually have a bias. We know about historical events through the writings of the times. We have the documents. Where as science may evolve into something more objective and standardized due to the fact that one may perform observed empirical study there, with regards to something like history, may be wide dispute or subjectivity on something that may not be obvious prima facie. History is riddled with this: examples that come to my mind (and mind you I'm in late antiquity mode) are things like the Pirenne Thesis, the Vision at Milvian Bridge, or Procopius and the Secret History. Based on an incomplete picture with perhaps the aid of archaeology we have to come up with the best theories we can on what happened. But as I stated previously - coming up with a trademark theory on a focused period in history is not going to nor has it earned one instant acclaim. I hardly find anything regarding new understandings on Spanish Apocalypse manuscripts in the recent popular literature. What would give one immediate fame is being able to find (again being crude) what's on the other side of a black hole. We have a rule about electric current flow and and it's attributed to Kirchoff. We can write questions on Kirchoff or Kirchoff's loop rule. It is popular and studied enough to be "of merit." Seldom does a standard collegiate text book say "G.A. Williamson thinks blah and blah about Procopius but Averil Cameron thinks blah blah on the other hand". Blah being a quite technical term that I will decline to explain here. History and its events and figures seems to be what's important (at least in quizbowl) and not historiography or interpretation. The work of historians helps us understand history that has come to pass. The work of a physicist on the other hand seeks to make a new discovery concerning the reality of the physical universe. I think this is an issue of scope. Saying that a discovery in physics or chemistry is more important that a new and interesting interpretation concerning history is a value judgement. The "quizbowl" canon is built upon value judgement because textbooks and curriculum are based upon what a certain body thinks is worth knowing. It is necessary in order to take high school chemistry to know the gas laws which are wouldn't you know it named after people who spent a portion of their life developing them. In order to complete a basic history course you need to know names, dates, events, and perhaps social trends. You don't need to know what historians wrote about what. Ross from his desk in Oakland, CA. --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "dan blim" <danblim_at_h...> wrote: > I also agree that grad-school level questions should be highly discouraged, > though certainly could be part of tossup clues or something. With regard to > famous scientist people, that is similar to authors/artists/composers from > works, or a poor recollection of a book's plot or a painting description- > essentially all these questions can be written without knowing a bit about > what it means, and can probably be gotten through memorization (though > actual knowledge helps). Questions on Clement Greenberg, key historians, > literary criticism and form, quantum structures, glycolysis cycles, or set > theory behind Berg's luminous violin concerto (sigh...)- these all require > expertise in the field. I think a good packet should have a nice balance of > the accessible to anyone, and accessible to those who have studied the > subject some, hopefully making all playing feel like it's worthwhile (the > goal, right?). Nothing like feeling you wasted a whole day driving > somewhere, eating crappy food, and playing a bad tournament. > > -Dan Blim > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST