Historians, Archaeologists, and Scientists
Philosophy

Historians, Archaeologists, and Scientists


Are historians scientists?  They frame hypotheses about the causes and effects of real events and use empirical evidence to support their accounts.  But they don't do not look for regularities to make into laws; to the contrary, they account for singular events in their uniqueness.  Isn't science about generality?

What about archaeologists?  Are they scientists?  Are they historians?  Both?  Neither?  Why?




- Modern Mencken
Tomorrow is Mencken day at the Enoch Pratt Library, honoring one of the great intellects of Baltimore.  Who would be the modern day version of H.L. Mencken?  Is there a writer who is smart, ascerbic, conservative, and wry?  P.J. O'Rourke? ...

- Fricking Fracking Fixtures
Two questions from Michael Schmidt.  First, "Frack" a suitable substitute for the expletive "fuck," and "frickin'" (or "frikkin'") is a suitable substitute for the participle "fuckin'". Why, then, is "frick" rarely used as a substitute...

- The Nature Of Genius
What does it mean for one to be a genius?  Is genius just the upper end of the really smart continuum? Is there a difference between genius and really, really, really, smart?  Is it a difference of kind or degree?  Is genius a matter of...

- Can You Really Own A Position?
I've been thinking about the use of the verb to own with respect to an intellectual view.  When a student is being wishy-washy about a proposition he or she is arguing for and clearly believes, I'll tell the student to "own the position." ...

- Is Addiction Itself Problematic?
I had lunch yesterday with my editors from Johns Hopkins University Press and one of them who ordered a cup of coffee was making light of her supposed caffeine addiction.  It leads to the question whether such an addiction would be a problem. ...



Philosophy








.