Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.clark.net!205.197.251.110!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: "We Got Better" Date: 12 May 1998 20:45:39 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6jacdj$9ot$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu I, Tibor, had written: I'm sure, someday, there will be a productive discussion on the Rialto on what our own standards should be, and how to better reach them. AEdric the Grene invited more discussion. I wish I knew where to start. We do a tremendous amount of teaching within the Society. Much of it by recreating the wheel over and over again, but also a large part of it by publication, and high-level discussion of self-taught experts. And, some by "telephone": A shows B shows C shows D shows E who talks to A who says "where did you learn THAT! That's wrong!".... I wonder: how can we raise the level of both? How can we do more? How can we make the learning more fun? Should we adopt traditional academic methods, or is the SCA surviving in a niche that traditional academe fails to serve? Also: How can we put our teaching into practice more, and should we? I know that I understand more about, say, period footwear than I actually use. My garb is adequate at best, but my feet are NOT. (:-) Tibor -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!not-for-mail From: "Steven H. Mesnick" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:00:20 -0400 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Lines: 38 Message-ID: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> References: <6jacdj$9ot$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> Reply-To: steffan@pobox.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-172-240-142.s15.as3.bsd.erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 895039868 20453 207.172.240.142 (13 May 1998 06:11:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) To: Mark Schuldenfrei Tibor wrote: > We do a tremendous amount of teaching within the Society. Much of it by > recreating the wheel over and over again, but also a large part of it by > publication, and high-level discussion of self-taught experts. And, some by > "telephone": A shows B shows C shows D shows E who talks to A who says > "where did you learn THAT! That's wrong!".... > > I wonder: how can we raise the level of both? How can we do more? How can > we make the learning more fun? Should we adopt traditional academic > methods, or is the SCA surviving in a niche that traditional academe fails > to serve? The SCA's method is haphazard and inefficient. Certainly we could all learn more, and faster, by attending some university courses. But that isn't the SCA. The SCA's method of education-by-bardic-circle (if you will) is its glory, and IMHO ought not to be messed with, at least not in any fundamental sense. When I joined the SCA, I had been a heraldIST for some years. The SCA provided me with the opportunity to be a *herald*, to get out there and do what heralds did, rather than just reading just another dusty tome. Likewise, my lady could not just *read* about medieval clothing, she could construct it, and *wear* it -- and, even further, she could wear it as *clothing* [appropriate to a social context], not costume [appropriate only to a theatrical production]. The SCA is about painless, nay *enjoyable* learning by osmosis, in many ways the antithesis of "traditional academic methods". Steffan ap Kennydd ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 17 Message-ID: <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 May 1998 14:10:30 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> Steffan ap Kennydd wrote> The SCA's method of education-by-bardic-circle (if you will) is its
The SCA is about painless, nay *enjoyable* learning by osmosis, in many ways the antithesis of "traditional academic >methods". It is (in many cases at least), certainly not as efficient as more structured learning but a lot more fun. I don't think I ever heard a student shout really bad puns at any of my proffs, tho....(thankfully!) Ullam ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!sibyl.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:18:08 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6jco4v$qof$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.187.23.112 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 13 18:18:08 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) I don't think I ever heard a student shout > really bad puns at any of my proffs, tho....(thankfully!) > > Ullam > > The prof is grateful, too. :-) Finnvarr -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 14 May 1998 00:01:12 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) wrote: > Steffan ap Kennydd wrote> > > The SCA is about painless, nay *enjoyable* learning by osmosis, in many ways > >the antithesis of "traditional academic > >methods". > > It is (in many cases at least), certainly not as efficient as more structured > learning but a lot more fun. May I suggest an alternate point of view on this question: In physics there exist 2 branches (both within academia): - theoretical physics: ponders and constructs theories - experimental physics: tests predictions of these theories Both need each other, t need e for the reality check, e need t for supplying them with ideas. Both regard the others as equals. In history the exist 2 separate things: - academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles - experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic Both have near to nothing to do with each other, a ignore e if they even acknowledge their existance, e often do not know what a has published. Both disdain the others to quite an extent. Physics is an successfull science, history is no where near. Go figure. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Lawyers are killing society, perhaps we should return the favour. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.clark.net!204.59.152.222!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 47 Message-ID: <1998051401070500.VAA02504@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 14 May 1998 01:07:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Neil Franklin wrote> >Physics is an successfull science, history is no where near. Go figure. > History is a failed science? Go figure. >- academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles >- experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic > >Both have near to nothing to do with each other, a ignore e if they even acknowledge their existance, e often do not know what a has published. Both disdain the others to quite an extent. > The SCA has nothing to do with acedemic historians? Is Bryan Maloney in the SCA? He certainly strikes me as a reasonably competent acedemic historian. Hmmm come to think of it, I've known quite a few acedemic historians in the SCA. Lot's of SCAdians acknowledging the existance of them, too. You see your fair share of plastic eyeglasses, sweatpants and engineer boots at events because we're 20th century humans and we're limited. Some of us are of limited means..some of limited ability. Some of us seem to be of limited patience and understanding (thankfully they seem to be a minority). None of this makes us the least bit responsible for the failure of history as a science. How did that go again? Oh yeah.....go figure. your's in service, Ullam I burn my candle at both ends; It shall not last the nite; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends- It gives a wonderous light! I purposefully mis-quoted my favorite exerpt from A Few Figs and Thistles (forgive me Edna). Is the spirit of the verse any less vital? Not to me. God IS in the details, as someone recently reminded me, but she's also in the spirit. And just to set the record straight.... My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night; But ah, my foes and oh, my friends- It gives a lovely light! -Edna St. Vincent Millay ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-fw.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.56.103!news.pe.net!not-for-mail From: gkirk@pe.net (Gregory Kirk) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:14:38 GMT Organization: yeah, right! Lines: 22 Message-ID: <355a6f96.10516043@news.pe.net> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sb01ppp46.pe.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 13 May 1998 14:10:30 GMT, gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) wrote: >Steffan ap Kennydd wrote> > The SCA's method of education-by-bardic-circle (if you will) is its
glory, and IMHO ought not to be messed with, at least not in any... > >I could not agree more. I like it this way, too. > >> The SCA is about painless, nay *enjoyable* learning by osmosis, in many ways >the antithesis of "traditional academic >>methods". > >It is (in many cases at least), certainly not as efficient as more structured >learning but a lot more fun. I don't think I ever heard a student shout >really bad puns at any of my proffs, tho....(thankfully!) > >Ullam > > Guess we didn;t go to school togehter then :) Greg ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-fw.gip.net!news-stock.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!207.207.0.26!nntp.giganews.com!newsgate.swbell.net!151.164.30.35.MISMATCH!cyclone.swbell.net!swbell!not-for-mail From: ldcharls@swbell.net Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 07:50:46 +0000 Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Richardson, TX Lines: 26 Message-ID: <355AA255.2DB4@swbell.net> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-207-193-45-15.austtx.swbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: (null) 895153519 18259 (None) 207.193.45.15 X-Complaints-To: usenet@nnrp1 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-SBMH (Macintosh; I; 68K) > Steffan ap Kennydd wrote> > > The SCA is about painless, nay *enjoyable* learning by osmosis, in many ways > the antithesis of "traditional academic > >methods". > Gore Crow wrote: > It is (in many cases at least), certainly not as efficient as more structured > learning but a lot more fun. I don't think I ever heard a student shout > really bad puns at any of my proffs, tho....(thankfully!) > > Ullam While the type of learning that occurs in the SCA may not be as structured as that in scholastic settings, I would think it to be equally efficient, if not more, so far as actual gain of knowledge is concerned. After all, how many college students are able to recall details from all their classes last spring? The advantage to structured learning is that it provides information in some pattern, where most learning in SCA settings tends to be more haphazard, depending on the interests of the learner at a given time. I think I tend to retain more when I'm reading about something that interests me, which not all structured classes can do. Lord Charles MacKinnon Barony of Bryn Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 14 May 1998 14:10:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.nfs100.access.net Greetings from Arval! > In physics there exist 2 branches (both within academia): > > - theoretical physics: ponders and constructs theories > - experimental physics: tests predictions of these theories > In history the exist 2 separate things: > > - academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles > - experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic The analogy doesn't work because physics and history are inherently different. Physics is fundamentally an experimental science: A theory lives or dies on how well it conforms to the next observation or experiment. History is a descriptive science, where real experimentation is impossible. What the Society does is not "experimentation" in the scientific sense because there are too many unknowns, too many uncontrollable variables. The very best modern re-enactments still can produce incorrect results because the modern world and modern people are so very different from the medieval world and its people. Experimentation in physics is important because it is an inherent part of the science. A properly-performed experiment produces results that are incontrovertible facts: No theory can ignore them. Experimentation in history is not important because even when done as well as humanly possible, it is still debatable whether or not the results are historical facts. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1998051414515600.KAA28277@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 14 May 1998 14:51:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <355AA255.2DB4@swbell.net> Lord Charles MacKinnon wrote> > While the type of learning that occurs in the SCA may not be as >structured as that in scholastic settings, I would think it to be >equally efficient, if not more, so far as actual gain of knowledge is concerned. I would argue with "equally as effective". In some cases, you are doubtless correct. I am sure that there are gentles who learn from our ways of teaching just as well or perhaps even better than they did in school. I attribute this to the fact that many of us really, really WANT to learn. Pretty cool, huh? Herein lies the difference. If I find myself being generally apathetic to the wonders of the angle loom, I'm not going to learn much, no matter how many workshops I sit thru out of politeness. On the other hand, my distaste for Cobol couldn't keep me from learning it......I had to for the credit. (I'm still trying to kill the brain cells where it resident to this day). 13 weeks of basic training taught me much, much more than 17 years of fighter practice. I still like our way better tho, and I hope that Lord Charles is correct. :) Ullam ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 14 May 1998 17:54:52 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6jfb5c$vbb$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <6jacdj$9ot$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu Steven H. Mesnick wrote: The SCA's method of education-by-bardic-circle (if you will) is its glory, and IMHO ought not to be messed with, at least not in any fundamental sense. "Education by bardic circle". What a great image. I salute you. I don't want us purchasing the "SCA's Grimoire of History" and holding study groups. But I wish we could be/are better about education. I don't thing we can become better by fiat. There is a contradiction within my desires. On the one hand, I love and adore that our organization learns from anyone, and that it isn't all that hard for someone to get knowledge, and share it. One person goes to the library: everyone in their shire benefits. I like that. But (and this is exactly contrary) we have a large number of SCA repeaters that here something, and without critical thinking, pass it on. And it's wrong, or distorted. I wish we could keep the good, and lose the bad. I also wish for a million dollars. (:-) Tibor -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 29 Message-ID: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 14 May 1998 18:29:08 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> >> - academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles >> - experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic > >The analogy doesn't work because physics and history are inherently >different. Physics is fundamentally an experimental science: A theory >lives or dies on how well it conforms to the next observation or >experiment. History is a descriptive science, where real experimentation >is impossible. > >What the Society does is not "experimentation" in the scientific sense >because there are too many unknowns, too many uncontrollable variables. >The very best modern re-enactments still can produce incorrect results >because the modern world and modern people are so very different from the >medieval world and its people. > >Experimentation in physics is important because it is an inherent part of >the science. A properly-performed experiment produces results that are >incontrovertible facts: No theory can ignore them. Experimentation in >history is not important because even when done as well as humanly >possible, it is still debatable whether or not the results are historical >facts. > >=========================================================================== >Arval d'Espas Nord Yeah, what he said! Ullam ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: fvigil@aol.com (Fvigil) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 10 Message-ID: <1998051421284200.RAA01288@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 14 May 1998 21:28:42 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> One of the ways to teach critical tinking is to explain to others the "why" of decisions you make. Also, when offering "criticism" explianing why is as important as what. Fernando ***************************************** Sir Fernando Rodriguez de Falcon, Baron of Three Rivers - Calontir, OP ***************************************** ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 14 May 1998 23:40:47 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <1998051401070500.VAA02504@ladder03.news.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) wrote: > Neil Franklin wrote> > >Physics is an successfull science, history is no where near. Go figure. > > > History is a failed science? Go figure. That comes from writing so late at night :-). I should have written in full: "Physics is an VERY successfull science..." That would have made history an LESS successfull science, not an faillure. Oops. > >- academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles > >- experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic > > > >Both have near to nothing to do with each other, a ignore e if they even > acknowledge their existance, e often do not know what a has published. Both > disdain the others to quite an extent. > > > The SCA has nothing to do with acedemic historians? Is Bryan Maloney in the > SCA? He certainly strikes me as a reasonably competent acedemic historian. > Hmmm come to think of it, I've known quite a few acedemic historians in the > SCA. Lot's of SCAdians acknowledging the existance of them, too. Here I did write it fully: "to quite an extent". That means a LARGE amount of then, not ALL of them. Obviously it does not apply to Brian. > patience and understanding (thankfully they seem to be a minority). None of > this makes us the least bit responsible for the failure of history as a > science. How did that go again? Oh yeah.....go figure. Hmmm. Here you seen to interpreting something into my words that was not intended. The historians that ignore the SCA and similar chances to test their ideas are responsible for the less than optimum success of history as an science. SCAdians that ignore historians would obviously be responsible for the SCA not being authentic, but that one has been discussed endlessly around here, so there is no need to repeat it. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Lawyers are killing society, perhaps we should return the favour. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 14 May 1998 23:55:10 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.co <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) wrote: > > In physics there exist 2 branches (both within academia): > > > > - theoretical physics: ponders and constructs theories > > - experimental physics: tests predictions of these theories > > > In history the exist 2 separate things: > > > > - academic historians: ponder and do intellectual battles > > - experimental such as SCA: try to recreate something that may be historic > > The analogy doesn't work because physics and history are inherently > different. Physics is fundamentally an experimental science: A theory > lives or dies on how well it conforms to the next observation or > experiment. History is a descriptive science, where real experimentation > is impossible. Any _science_ is experimental, else it isn't a science, just speculation. The process of science is defined by making hypothesis and then _testing_ them. > What the Society does is not "experimentation" in the scientific sense > because there are too many unknowns, too many uncontrollable variables. > The very best modern re-enactments still can produce incorrect results > because the modern world and modern people are so very different from the > medieval world and its people. It certainly is not laboratory grade experimentation. But that does not make it entire useless. Testing clothes for wearability, weapons and armor for usability, fighting techniques for survivability is certainly possible. Quite a few SCAdians have done that, such as Master Iolo and his crossbows. He certainly experimented a lot and _found_out_ in the process why certain things are just _that_ way. That is a lot better than simply speculating, which seems to still be to an large extent what historians do. > Experimentation in physics is important because it is an inherent part of > the science. A properly-performed experiment produces results that are > incontrovertible facts: No theory can ignore them. And historical science can ignore experimental results :-)? > Experimentation in > history is not important because even when done as well as humanly > possible, it is still debatable whether or not the results are historical > facts. It still has value as an reality check, and that is all it does in physics. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Lawyers are killing society, perhaps we should return the favour. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 15 May 1998 10:44:22 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> <1998051421284200.RAA01288@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.nfs100.access.net Greetings from Arval! Fernando wrote: > One of the ways to teach critical tinking is to explain to others the > "why" of decisions you make. Also, when offering "criticism" explianing > why is as important as what. Quite true. Our problem, in part, is that _any_ criticism is often viewed as intrusive, "authenticity policing", and dismissed out-of-hand as simple rudeness. It is possible to criticize well and badly, politely and rudely. Tibor's question, as I read it, is how we can change our social attitude so that criticism is valued by default rather than scorned by default. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.linkline.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 15 May 1998 11:03:50 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 39 Message-ID: <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.co <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.nfs100.access.net Greetings from Arval! Neil.Franklin replied to me. me> The analogy doesn't work because physics and history are inherently me> different. Physics is fundamentally an experimental science: A theory me> lives or dies on how well it conforms to the next observation or me> experiment. History is a descriptive science, where real experimentation me> is impossible. > Any _science_ is experimental, else it isn't a science, just speculation. > The process of science is defined by making hypothesis and then _testing_ > them. That's too broad a definition: There are clearly important distinctions within this category. In some fields, theories can be tested only by further observation (e.g. paleontology, most of the social sciences); in others, like physics, proper technique requires designing experiments specifically to test a theory. me> Experimentation in history is not important because even when done as me> well as humanly possible, it is still debatable whether or not the me> results are historical facts. > It still has value as an reality check, and that is all it does in > physics. I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally incorrect. Experimentation is physics is the _only_ reality. If a repeatable experiment contradicts a theory, then the theory is wrong, plain and simple. On the other hand, if a historical experiment contradicts a historical theory, historians can legitimately reject the experimental evidence as irrelevent. In a very vague sense, history is a statistical science: A theory is valid if it explains a statistically significant sample of the evidence. That is definitely not a valid approach in physics. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.he.net!news.pbi.net!ns2.foothill.net!not-for-mail From: "EricF" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:59:28 -0700 Organization: Foothill.Net Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6ji37h$gv9$1@ns2.foothill.net> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.co <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tahoe-d43.foothill.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Arval d'Espas Nord wrote in message <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com>... > [much snippage] >Experimentation is physics is the _only_ reality. If a repeatable experiment contradicts a theory, >then the theory is wrong, plain and simple. On the other hand, if a >historical experiment contradicts a historical theory, historians can >legitimately reject the experimental evidence as irrelevent. > >In a very vague sense, history is a statistical science: A theory is valid >if it explains a statistically significant sample of the evidence. That is >definitely not a valid approach in physics. > >=========================================================================== >Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com > I'm not sure I would agree with this. Given the amount of probability used in modern physics, it seems that the question is more a matter of degree. Experimentation in history gives statistical results, as do many experiments in physics. The difference being that the margin for error in physics is considerably smaller than in historical research. I would also take issue with the concept that one experiment contradicting a theory, no matter how repeatable, proves that theory false. The reason I say that is the inherent difficulty in proving any theory wrong. Ulitmately, all one can do is prove the opposing theory right, which is not the same thing. Conal ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 16 Message-ID: <1998051514383500.KAA19988@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 15 May 1998 14:38:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: >Hmmm. Here you seen to interpreting something into my words that was not intended. The historians that ignore the SCA and similar chances to test their ideas are responsible for the less than optimum success of history as an science. SCAdians that ignore historians would obviously be responsible for the SCA not being authentic, but that one has been discussed endlessly around here, so there is no need to repeat it. > > Hmmm I think I'm beginning to get your idea. I'd still argue the concept of history as a science, but as I've said - the spirit counts more than the letter. I s'pose we can agree to disagree. Your's in service, Ullam ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 15 May 1998 16:36:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 25 Message-ID: <6ji90p$mmp@panix5.panix.com> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.co <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com> <6ji37h$gv9$1@ns2.foothill.net> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.nfs100.access.net > I would also take issue with the concept that one experiment > contradicting a theory, no matter how repeatable, proves that theory > false. The reason I say that is the inherent difficulty in proving any > theory wrong. Ulitmately, all one can do is prove the opposing theory > right, which is not the same thing. I'm afraid you have this exactly backward. In physics, nothing is _ever_ proven right. Even the very best theory could fall to bits tomorrow in the face of a solid counter-example. If I drop an apple tomorrow and it doesn't fall, then Newton was wrong. One of the basic mis-understandings of science in the modern world is the idea that scientists prove things. It is normally expressed in the negative: "Well, you can't _prove_ that there are no alien space ships." Science does not prove things; it theorizes and experiments and slowly builds up a consistent explanation of the world with a collection of the theories that have stood up to the best attempts at disproof. Proof is for mathematicians. Indeed, that is the basic distinction between science and mathematics. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 15 May 1998 16:44:23 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6jhrd7$4me$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> <1998051421284200.RAA01288@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu Arval d'Espas Nord wrote: It is possible to criticize well and badly, politely and rudely. Tibor's question, as I read it, is how we can change our social attitude so that criticism is valued by default rather than scorned by default. Exactly correct. But Arval knows me well. Tibor -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gorecrow@aol.com (Gore Crow) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Lines: 14 Message-ID: <1998051519163000.PAA10787@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 15 May 1998 19:16:30 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> >It is possible to criticize well and badly, politely and rudely. Tibor's question, as I read it, is how we can change our social attitude so that criticism is valued by default rather than scorned by default. I'm working on changing MY social attitude. Everyone else is on their own. I've also made a promise to myself to attempt to sound less confrontational when I express counter opinions. Trying to change others sounds kinda pompous to me. If we all manage to improve ourselves, however, the benefits might just affect the whole Society, or even (dare I say it?) the WHOLE WORLD!!!! It's a good thing I always use my powers for good and not evil. your's in service, Ullam ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 15 May 1998 22:53:02 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6jj9ju$53e@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <355936F4.EFA6318F@erols.com> <1998051314103000.KAA28588@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.co <6jfc3c$2lv@panix5.panix.com> <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com> X-Posted-By: @207.218.167.18 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Arval d'Espas Nord wrote in message <6jhlgm$3ka@panix5.panix.com>... >I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally incorrect. Experimentation is physics >is the _only_ reality. If a repeatable experiment contradicts a theory, >then the theory is wrong, plain and simple. On the other hand, if a >historical experiment contradicts a historical theory, historians can >legitimately reject the experimental evidence as irrelevent. Lacking a time machine or access to alternate realities, you *can't* perform a "history experiment" the same way you can perform a physics experiment. In physics, you can control the parameters pretty well, and the items you are experimenting on are not conscious, thinking things with memories. No "historical experiment" can do this. >In a very vague sense, history is a statistical science: A theory is valid >if it explains a statistically significant sample of the evidence. That is >definitely not a valid approach in physics. Actually, all experimental sciences use a statistical approach. Only the mathematical branches can escape this, and in physics even they can not (e.g. quantum effects). But in physics and the other physical sciences, you can study the statistical behavior of very large numbers of essentially identical items, and use it to predict the behavior of other essentially identical items of the same kind. None of the social sciences has this luxury, since the numbers of people in the world is much much lower than the number of atoms in a beaker, and they are nothing like identical to each other. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 18 May 1998 23:07:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6jr7i4$am8@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> <1998051421284200.RAA01288@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> <356406da.9646159@news.mindspring.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.188 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 There's at least three ways people view criticism: As an attempt to belittle them for how they fall short, As an attempt to enrich them with how they might improve, And as completely irrelevant since they know better anyway. Both the critic and the criticized play a role in deciding which view predominates; rarely can either alone do so. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-stock.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!not-for-mail From: AEdric@mindspring.com (AEdric the Grene) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 04:13:19 GMT Organization: House Howling Mouse Lines: 22 Message-ID: <356406da.9646159@news.mindspring.com> References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> <1998051421284200.RAA01288@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> Reply-To: AEdric@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-207-205-128-165.atln.grid.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 19 May 1998 04:11:19 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) wrote: >It is possible to criticize well and badly, politely and rudely. Tibor's >question, as I read it, is how we can change our social attitude so that >criticism is valued by default rather than scorned by default. I would say, from unfortunate personal experience, that it is also important to remember that many, or some vocal few, in the SCA regard the SCA as more towards religion and less towards historical study. That is, when you criticise the SCA they take it as personal criticism because of their belief in the organisation and attachment to it, which is usually not the case in a field of scholarly pursuit such as history. Criticising what people regard as a lifestyle and part of who they are can raise all sorts of emotional hackles. That makes criticism much harder in some areas than it would otherwise be. AEdric the Grene AKA "Dennis" Anglo-Saxon, KnowItAll wannabe, Cider drinker Arms: Per Pale, sable and vert (or is it vert and sable...) Legs: 3'6" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: 19 May 1998 14:52:56 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 21 Message-ID: <6js6c8$6s1$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <1998051418290800.OAA18234@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> <356406da.9646159@news.mindspring.com> <6jr7i4$am8@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu Dennis O'Connor wrote: There's at least three ways people view criticism: As an attempt to belittle them for how they fall short, As an attempt to enrich them with how they might improve, And as completely irrelevant since they know better anyway. That may not be a perfect statement on the issue: but it's the best I've seen in quite a while. (:-) Both the critic and the criticized play a role in deciding which view predominates; rarely can either alone do so. And then the question becomes: what can one *do* about it? (Stipulating we would prefer an outcome more like your second line above). Tibor -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:58:31 -0700 From: Heather Senkler X-Sender: wl835@vtn1 Subject: Re: "We Got Better" In-Reply-To: <1998051519163000.PAA10787@ladder03.news.aol.com> Message-ID: References: <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> <1998051519163000.PAA10787@ladder03.news.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: vifa1.freenet.victoria.bc.ca Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.bctel.net!news.pinc.com!news.victoria.tc.ca!vtn1!wl835 On 15 May 1998, Gore Crow wrote: > I'm working on changing MY social attitude. Everyone else is on their own. > I've also made a promise to myself to attempt to sound less confrontational > when I express counter opinions. Trying to change others sounds kinda pompous > to me. If we all manage to improve ourselves, however, the benefits might just > affect the whole Society, or even (dare I say it?) the WHOLE WORLD!!!! > > It's a good thing I always use my powers for good and not evil. > > your's in service, > Ullam (If I may be permitted to butcher a nice bit o' fiction,...) And all of this occured nearly 2000 years after a man got nailed to a tree for saying how much better the world would be if we would all just be nice to each other for a change. YIS Ekatarina ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!nntp2.cerf.net!nntp3.cerf.net!news.sdsc.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!usenet From: Duane Brocious Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: "We Got Better" Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:32:57 -0400 Organization: PSU Lines: 12 Message-ID: <3565D2E9.614A@psu.edu> References: <6jhkc6$1ch@panix5.panix.com> <1998051519163000.PAA10787@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: dnb105@psu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: nb6ppp223.cac.psu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Heather Senkler wrote: > And all of this occured nearly 2000 years after a man got nailed to a tree Prometheus or Odin ? :-) Actually the sentiment goes back much more than 2000 years ago. The "Golden Rule" far pre-dates christianity. Ferret