An Ode To History

Stop Repeating Stupid Stuff

Today’s image is the scales of justice. I thought since they play a role in my video, are part of the post and at least for me a scale like this reminds me that it took time for the balance to stop swinging (just like we shouldn’t jump to conclusions) it worked for today’s post. I hope you agree when you are finished.

About six or so years ago I became involved in a History Book Club in my town of Rosemount MN. Long before I was “in the club” I enjoyed reading all sorts of books including a fair amount of history. I maintain a healthy respect for education and the scientific method. I think the scientific method has been applied to so many facets of our lives in an almost transparent fashion that we are often unaware of the breadth of the progress it has brought to the world.

I believe that many people seem to relish when there is an error and they almost celebrate it. It is not uncommon to hear people say “well that Ph.D. doesn’t know what he’s talking about, remember when he got ‘insert example’ wrong”? I’ve always been surprised how often I hear something like that from a surprisingly broad assortment of people. The irrationality of that approach, in my opinion, is best shown by the observation that Thomas Edison at his Menlo Park, NJ lab had a team of scientists and technicians try 6,000 different filaments before finally settling on a good set of components for the incandescent light. It seems foolish to say, yeah but that dang Edison didn’t really know anything on most of the tries so he’s not that smart. He hardly knew anything. I recognize the value of “common sense” and my point is not to disparage it. Common sense and trial and error and just getting better at something have been the means to some wonderful discoveries in all fields of endeavor. I think the same failing exists among the experts expressed differently. It is as if they sometimes only value what they have worked hard to attain and discount the value of other opinions if they haven’t emerged from their school of thought. I think both of these approaches are “bad science”.

What always shocks me is how an instance of some decision or opinion that turns out to be wrong after further consideration somehow illuminates a sensible reason to ignore the trained at all costs. In our current age, why would we want to silence recognized scholars who share their opinions about the COVID virus just because their idea might prove to need some refinement down the road? Silencing them or mocking them for some purpose seems counter-productive. The wonder of the iterative approach is that it leads inexorably to better answers and the only price we pay on that journey is incomplete answers when the challenge is first encountered. I consider such an approach to mock or question such things ignorant and counter-productive. My favorite movie (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) that captures bad deductive reasoning with great humor is linked here. While you perhaps contemplate what I just wrote, it is a great time to give my opinion time to settle and have a good laugh for a couple of minutes. In some ways, watching the video and pausing might give your mind sufficient time to at least consider your beliefs in light of new information. That would be why this is CERTAINLY NOT the time to like, dislike or comment just yet. If you must, just close it and say “this is not for me”. I hope, alternately you might read on.

Many years ago when I got married, I came to know my father-in-law quite well. Rod and his wife Mary were simply wonderful people. So many of their qualities were highly developed in their daughter. Rod practiced law for his career and would patiently answer my questions about the field which I knew almost nothing about. He was a patient listener and no matter what I might ask him, I later sensed that at some point he had previously pondered a similar question and came to an understanding with himself about what he thought about it. He was not quick to speak but rather, quick to think. Likewise, his wife was similar in some ways. Their thoughtfulness and consideration often meant they always seemed to have a plan.

At that time, I freely admit, I knew nothing about the law except what might be portrayed on television or a novel or pop culture in general. By any objective standard, I was ignorant in regard to the law. One day, I asked Rod, why did you choose the law for a career. He paused and reflected for a moment and said something akin to:

• “I love the law. While it is imperfect at times, it is simply the very best way people have ever developed to settle our differences.”

I have thought about that at times as the years have gone by. In many ways, this was an articulation of the scientific method! The law is slowly and methodically evolving via the establishment of precedent. Sometimes, it seems to settle matters of justice “incorrectly”. Nevertheless, slowly but surely it marches forward and becomes better over time. It seems that when a field of endeavor is structured in that way, we can have faith that it will eventually arrive at something resembling a more and more accurate truth. I hope we never have a situation where we can reliably predict how a judge might rule as that would be similar to that Edison technician simply skipping the filament tests involving tungsten just because he had seen some previous results. What a tragedy that would be.

When I now think about the law, I can understand how Rod came to love it because the process leads inexorably to truth as long as we don’t shortcut the process with our bias. While having nothing to do with science in the classical sense, this is exactly the scientific method. It has never been about being exactly right, but rather questioning the issues at the edge and refining the truth methodically.

I think that the WAY that Rod responded to my question and took the time to explain and refine what he thought about it was critical to CHANGING my perspective about the law. What does a late 20s man with no exposure to the law really know about it? I had heard (and repeated) many of the jokes directed at the field. What was that about? I look back now and it was probably immaturity and an utter lack of understanding about a field I knew nothing about. The truth was that I was fortunate to ask the right person, listen attentively, and critically evaluate what I had heard. I think that is what reading a book is really all about for me. Ah, for those of you who patiently accept my tangents, we are finally coming back to history.

Those books I read need not be only fiction or only non-fiction although our book club is focused on non-fiction. That is why there are so many book clubs and approaches I guess. One of the qualities of my Rosemount History Book Club that I really enjoy were the guidelines I was introduced to at the beginning. The club has necessarily deviated from some of those original principles for perhaps sound reasons. In the beginning, it was stressed that we were focused on choosing books in the secondary market that may have been out for a while. While we did not spend a lot of time on that tenet, I think there were a couple of benefits to the approach:

• Some of our members were on a fixed income and the purchase of a newer book might be a financial burden.

• The new, “hot” book, although available at the library might still be on a waitlist and that might make it a little harder for some to obtain in our reading window.

• The secondary market for newish books can become a little more challenging.

• Once books are out in paperback, the used copies become even more economical (and a lot lighter).

Over the course of time I have been in the club, we have become a bit more flexible in our book selections. I think that is, on balance, a good thing. However, one of the things that I do notice is that reading a nearly new book brings with it some pitfalls. Books are rushed out during periods of division and I think that can necessarily lead to half-baked observations. I think we have all heard the maxim about letting some time pass before we assess the greatness or importance of a man or woman who might still be in the news today. I think the consensus in the history field seems to be to let some time pass and the scholarship accrue before weighing in on recent characters. While new books can be about something that happened long ago, they can also be about something quite recent.

I think the “letting scholarship accrue” is akin to the scientific method. It is the different opinions and the passage of time that casts a “more correct story” I believe. In other words, a bit of time for peer review is valuable. As a believer in what the scientific method has brought to the world, that is my thought for the evening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you disagree or have a constructive comment, I would love to hear it. Thanks for spending the time and hope to see you tomorrow.

Finally, we are at the time for a musical reference. I am feeling upbeat so since this post bounces around between science and law and history, I decided to go with a fleeting reference to Galileo who suffered for a time while his ideas slowly but surely sunk in. What he had to say, while not 100% true, truly advanced our understanding of the world. I am glad he did not face the Facebook tribunal based upon people’s whims at the moment. You have to wait for about 3:20 to FINALLY GET to that little reference. I hope it was worth the wait.

25+

---

---