Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    How do you know its wrong? Were you there?
    That's like me saying "Henry VIII was made of poo, ate the entire population of England and burned all immigrants". Am I wrong? How do you know? Where you there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blake-inator)
    That's like me saying "Henry VIII was made of poo, ate the entire population of England and burned all immigrants". Am I wrong? How do you know? Where you there?
    Brilliant. :congrats:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    You learn how to scrutinize source material in many subjects, incidentally as skill which is also very prevalent in the science.
    I can't possibly comment on Science at degree level, but I'll take your word for it
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BC95)
    I can't possibly comment on Science at degree level, but I'll take your word for it
    I wouldn't, my friends in his last year of Physics Masters degree and he has never done this ^^
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blake-inator)
    I wouldn't, my friends in his last year of Physics Masters degree and he has never done this ^^
    hmm not sure what to believe :confused:, maybe I'll just wait for him to respond to this
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Strong negs, OP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
    Studying history isn't just learning arbitrary facts about the past. Sure, I'm biased as a history applicant, but I see it as way more useful than most sciences.
    Hello Jolly,

    I must preface my response by making my bias clear too, because I consider myself a natural and vocational scientist, as I read medicine. Saying history is more useful than science, any science, is simply not the case (in my personal opinion).

    I don't really know why this is, but whenever people think "science", they think only about the theory of relativity and astronomy. Scientists have discovered the electron, invented the wire, light bulbs and equivalent, the telephone, the internet, the computer, the processor and statistics theory (all of which constitute modern day economics), the car, architecture (applied mathematics [physics and engineering with art]), the aeroplane, and so on, and so forth. Those are just some of the real world practical applications of science. I'm not even going to get started on 21st century medicine, and just how good we have become at extending human life through major and exclusively scientific breakthroughs. Please do not imagine science as some purely theoretical exercise which elucidates "already existing stuff", because that is simply the single stupidest premise for a science based argument that's out there. Science does help us discover more about what we are and the universe through Hypothetico-deductive models, but its practical applications are absolutely, absolutely everywhere, and it is by far the single most useful asset to humanity.

    I don't want you to get the impression I think History is useless, far from it, I think its an amazing way to examine psychological and in some cases psycho-physiological ideas, and makes us more aware of modern day trends in fields such as economics and politics, but your statement just hit a nerve.

    On a side-note, I think that idiom is superfluous, nobody would clone a dinosaur without thinking of possible adversities. Surely you don't think that lowly of us Jolly!

    EDIT: Whoever thinks History is useless, or, more shockingly, thinks you can learn its degree equivalent from Wikipedia is clearly on something.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why science has been brought into this, the argument was whether history is pointless or not, not whether its more useful than science as a degree, which I think even the most ardent historian wouldn't argue, cause its pretty obvious it would be a non argument, but that's not to say history is useless at all just because it isn't as useful as science.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Taken)
    Hello Jolly,

    I must preface my response by making my bias clear too, because I consider myself a natural and vocational scientist, as I read medicine. Saying history is more useful than science, any science, is simply not the case (in my personal opinion).

    I don't really know why this is, but whenever people think "science", they think only about the theory of relativity and astronomy. Scientists have discovered the electron, invented the wire, light bulbs and equivalent, the telephone, the internet, the computer, the processor and statistics theory (all of which constitute modern day economics), the car, architecture (applied mathematics [physics and engineering with art]), the aeroplane, and so on, and so forth. Those are just some of the real world practical applications of science. I'm not even going to get started on 21st century medicine, and just how good we have become at extending human life through major and exclusively scientific breakthroughs. Please do not imagine science as some purely theoretical exercise which elucidates "already existing stuff", because that is simply the single stupidest premise for a science based argument that's out there. Science does help us discover more about what we are and the universe through Hypothetico-deductive models, but its practical applications are absolutely, absolutely everywhere, and it is by far the single most useful asset to humanity.

    I don't want you to get the impression I think History is useless, far from it, I think its an amazing way to examine psychological and in some cases psycho-physiological ideas, and makes us more aware of modern day trends in fields such as economics and politics, but your statement just hit a nerve.

    On a side-note, I think that idiom is superfluous, nobody would clone a dinosaur without thinking of possible adversities. Surely you don't think that lowly of us Jolly!

    EDIT: Whoever thinks History is useless, or, more shockingly, thinks you can learn its degree equivalent from Wikipedia is clearly on something.
    Fair point and well made. I concede that perhaps I spoke with haste when I placed science subordinate to history in rankings of utility, and perhaps I was envisioning the more theoretical side of science. Allow me to rephrase my claim: Scientific advancements are dependent on historical understanding to be valuable to us, as a species.

    However, I think we will have to agree to disagree in some respects. Scientific knowledge is an incredibly potent tool for advancement, but its practical applications are worthless without a society which they can advance. A rigorous understanding and appreciation of the follies and merits of the past is, in my view, the only thing we can use to craft the stable society that science's advancements can flourish in.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    < insert transferable skills argument >
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, i'm not sure your would consider a History degree more pointless than David Beckham Studies...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
    Fair point and well made. I concede that perhaps I spoke with haste when I placed science subordinate to history in rankings of utility, and perhaps I was envisioning the more theoretical side of science. Allow me to rephrase my claim: Scientific advancements are dependent on historical understanding to be valuable to us, as a species.

    However, I think we will have to agree to disagree in some respects. Scientific knowledge is an incredibly potent tool for advancement, but its practical applications are worthless without a society which they can advance. A rigorous understanding and appreciation of the follies and merits of the past is, in my view, the only thing we can use to craft the stable society that science's advancements can flourish in.
    I entirely agree with your point here. I appreciate your calm and rational response, and the fact we were able to have a humane exchange of points.

    Best of luck on your degree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Sure its interesting but it would be better just to read Wikipedia than wasting time and money doing a degree in it.

    There is much more scope to learn about and you could use the time and money to get a worthwhile degree.

    Anyone else agree?
    Better just to read wikipedia? When you have read real books and journal articles by historians you will realise why you can't just read wikipedia
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by holmes221)
    Better just to read wikipedia? When you have read real books and journal articles by historians you will realise why you can't just read wikipedia
    Yeah, wikipedia can be a good starting point for a topic to have a quick look at and perhaps you could use it and get good grades at GCSE level, but not at university level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Invalid? How so?

    I could learn any history topic in a matter of hours, whats the point of studying it for a degree?
    Of course, you could skim the surface of a history topic in a couple of hours and gain a basic knowledge of it, but a history degree entails so much more than just that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It seems like someone hasn't heard of the myriad of degrees with titles like 'Fashion Management'...either that, or you study one of them
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Sure its interesting but it would be better just to read Wikipedia than wasting time and money doing a degree in it.

    There is much more scope to learn about and you could use the time and money to get a worthwhile degree.

    Anyone else agree?
    And who do you think writes the Wikipedia articles? And who do you think should decide what is true on Wikipedia?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Taken)
    I entirely agree with your point here. I appreciate your calm and rational response, and the fact we were able to have a humane exchange of points.

    Best of luck on your degree.
    Isn't it nice having a polite conversation on TSR? Haha.

    Thanks, although I won't be starting it until October. Good luck to you as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halbeth)
    THIS.

    It's interesting how many people who think that history is just the pointless recitation of facts also seem prepared to blindly accept one version of the events presented to them. People need to wake up.
    EXACTLY!!!!!
    I remember when I was younger, many people in my class would outright state that they hated Germany as they caused both WWI & WWII. I even had one girl say to me she didn't like me as I am 1/4 German.

    That could be seen as the example of someone who has merely read the Wikipedia page, she knows some facts. Yes, German expansionism was a significant cause of both WWI & WWII.

    Now, thankfully, everyone has grown up and do not make statements like that, however it still provides the crux of my argument.

    History teaches us about PEOPLE. People doing science may look down on this, however I would argue it is as equally important as being able to view the world from a scientific perspective. Having done History further, and planning to study it for my degree, I can say, yes, German expansionism was a cause of both wars, but it wasn't the only one. Germany, and especially the German people, were not solely to blame. It allows us to see how individuals have effected and shaped history. By studying the past in this depth it allows us to consider the actions of individuals, and civilizations that had an impact on the world, on an objective level, and view the impacts. Rather than just recanting the information, by analyzing it we break down the barriers.

    German expansionism was a significant cause of both World wars.
    Other causes of WWI include(I haven't looked at WWII in depth to the same extent, so would not feel qualified to discuss it- I am aware it would take more than just reading Wikipedia to provide a decent explanation) Russia's determination to prove itself on a world stage, and Britain's determination to remain the worlds largest power.

    By examining the reasons, we avoid placing blame on one nation, or people. We consider all causes, which allows us to reach better conclusions on how to treat current crises.

    I know what I have written may seem a bit wishy-washy, but I'm not always great at expressing myself in writing. :dontknow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can nobody on this forum detect obvious troll threads.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.