Which sciences best complement History PhD?

[civfanatic]

Most universities that I have seen actually have archaeology under the Anthropology Department, but yes, there is such a great overlap between history and archaeology (especially when we lack written records) that any who is serious about history should probably also be familiar with archaeology.

 

[DoomBunny]

Of course, one could not do a science at all and instead teach oneself another language. In military history, for example, that will do far more for you than any science ever could.

 

[gladius2metal]

Of course, one could not do a science at all and instead teach oneself another language. In military history, for example, that will do far more for you than any science ever could.

Jawohl!

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

I have to agree on the language. Most of the science or statistics you're talking about is a fairly elementary level of those fields. You could do it as what we call a minor for an undergraduate degree, or just be well read. The detailed nitty gritty will be down to specialists.

Interestingly what there is a bit of an opening for is mathematics+history. The last few hundred years of maths have been dominated by exclusively looking forward. But there are some big gaps in the study of the history of it that a small handful could make their own niche - looking through ancient Greek texts including the likes of plays for hints of lost mathematical works, or even the works themselves forgotten and gone untranslated by historians; and looking mathematically at how the likes of the ancient to pre-modern Chinese handled cryptography when their script didn't automatically lend itself to Caesar or Vigenere ciphers, are two areas specifically mentioned by different lecturers of mine that were sorely lacking. The thing is they're not likely to be of much use to modern mathematicians, who can't speak Greek anyway; but historians would probably miss geometrical algebra or proto-calculus if they were hit in the face by it with a wet fish. All it needs is someone to go cross discipline and there should be an "easy" thesis in it.

 

[yerm]

I consider a lack of basic mathematical know-how to be one of the most crippling flaws of an otherwise good historian. I don't necessarily know that it's the ideal second field of study though rather than just a cursory level of it being a must-have.

I'd probably say in a general sense economics would be best. It would provide rudimentary math and probability/statistics which are useful to any historian on top if its study value in MOST history fields.

 

[civfanatic]

I consider a lack of basic mathematical know-how to be one of the most crippling flaws of an otherwise good historian. I don't necessarily know that it's the ideal second field of study though rather than just a cursory level of it being a must-have.

I'd probably say in a general sense economics would be best. It would provide rudimentary math and probability/statistics which are useful to any historian on top if its study value in MOST history fields.

What exactly do you mean by "basic mathematical know-how" and "rudimentary math"? Do you mean stuff up to and including basic calculus? I don't think a historian has much use for anything beyond that, unless his specific field of expertise is the history of mathematics.

 

[pirro]

Most universities that I have seen actually have archaeology under the Anthropology Department, but yes, there is such a great overlap between history and archaeology (especially when we lack written records) that any who is serious about history should probably also be familiar with archaeology.

In my speciality, archaeology and history are the same thing

 

[gladius2metal]

What exactly do you mean by "basic mathematical know-how" and "rudimentary math"? Do you mean stuff up to and including basic calculus? I don't think a historian has much use for anything beyond that, unless his specific field of expertise is the history of mathematics.

I agree with yerm and from my experience, it would be nice to see historians who are "not afraid" of numbers that are not dates...
especially in German speaking countries they (and other liberal arts/humanity academics) tend to utter a wrongly attributed quote: "don't trust any statistics you didn't falsify yourself".

But maybe this is different in other cultures. Yet, remembering some articles about science and journalism in English media, I doubt it.

 

[pirro]

I agree with yerm and from my experience, it would be nice to see historians who are "not afraid" of numbers that are not dates...
especially in German speaking countries they (and other liberal arts/humanity academics) tend to utter a wrongly attributed quote: "don't trust any statistics you didn't falsify yourself".

But maybe this is different in other cultures. Yet, remembering some articles about science and journalism in English media, I doubt it.

In my experience, the german academia is quite dated. You guys don't seem t like interdisciplinary studies and stuff like anthropologist working with us historians and archaeologists isn't common at all

 

[gladius2metal]

In my experience, the german academia is quite dated. You guys don't seem t like interdisciplinary studies and stuff like anthropologist working with us historians and archaeologists isn't common at all

well, to quote a former History professor of mine, who was German, but worked at an Austrian university (rumor was, he couldn't get a position in Germany, because he collaborated once with the media, which was a big no no), he said this: "there was a clone before the clone-sheep Dolly and it was the German History Professor"...
So, you are probably not too far off, on the other hand I know mostly the Austrian side, yet, my favorite professors were usually German once, but I guess those that went/visited Austria were usually not the commons one either.

 

[pirro]

well, to quote a former History professor of mine, who was German, but worked at an Austrian university (rumor was, he couldn't get a position in Germany, because he collaborated once with the media, which was a big no no), he said this: "there was a clone before the clone-sheep Dolly and it was the German History Professor"...
So, you are probably not too far off, on the other hand I know mostly the Austrian side, yet, my favorite professors were usually German once, but I guess those that went/visited Austria were usually not the commons one either.

Actually my german teacher back in the day was an austrian who had studied history in Wien. He knew his stuff, but he was still sort of a positivist and young pirro here was annoyed by that. Thats my sole experience with austrian historians in my life.

My experience with germans is greater and those are my feelings

 

[yerm]

What exactly do you mean by "basic mathematical know-how" and "rudimentary math"? Do you mean stuff up to and including basic calculus? I don't think a historian has much use for anything beyond that, unless his specific field of expertise is the history of mathematics.

Basically yes. I do agree about it not really needing to go into higher level math (hence me saying it not necessarily a good secondary pursuit in itself) but the more rudimentary elements are critical. Whether it's population or troop/casualty counts that make no sense, absurd ratios, vanishing money or people, travel times, there are a million different ways that historians can be as glad put it "afraid" of numbers.

I say economics for two reasons. The first is that in itself I think it plays far more of a role in historical events and affairs than given credit for - so many things like religion, politics, migration can all be attributed to some form of economic rationale that many scholars (I think) downplay or overlook. The second as stated is that studying higher level economic theory necessarily includes a core of basic (not post-calc) math with a heavy dose of statistics that will supplement almost any history study EVEN IF the economic side specifically is a miss.

 

[kaoss]

What exactly do you mean by "basic mathematical know-how" and "rudimentary math"? Do you mean stuff up to and including basic calculus? I don't think a historian has much use for anything beyond that, unless his specific field of expertise is the history of mathematics.

A basic knowledge of statistics and data analysis should be a must for any schoolar.

 

[pirro]

A basic knowledge of statistics and data analysis should be a must for any schoolar.

Doubtful. Statistics in history are usually bullcrap, specially in like everything that isn't contemporary history

 

[kaoss]

Doubtful. Statistics in history are usually bullcrap, specially in like everything that isn't contemporary history

Not only statistics, but large quantities of data. What information can you extract from any registry if you don't apply some kind of data analysis?

 

[yerm]

Rudimentary statistics understanding is probably enough in most hard sciences; they're probably better served by other branches of mathematics. A concrete knowledge of statistics comes up when you run into fields where collection methods differ, transmission sources come and go, and just plain downright fabrication can come into play - like history and politics. I don't think an English Literature scholar needs stat, really, not that it hurts.

 

[pirro]

Not only statistics, but large quantities of data. What information can you extract from any registry if you don't apply some kind of data analysis?

I don't like cuantitivist historiography, to answer it shortly

 

[gladius2metal]

Not only statistics, but large quantities of data. What information can you extract from any registry if you don't apply some kind of data analysis?

I don't like cuantitivist historiography, to answer it shortly

you are definitely not alone and this is probably one of the main reason I have a quite negative stance towards most historians, because the utter ignorance when it comes to hard data that is usually masked as taste. If you want to understand something, you use the proper or best available methodology.

 

[pirro]

you are definitely not alone and this is probably one of the main reason I have a quite negative stance towards most historians, because the utter ignorance when it comes to hard data that is usually masked as taste. If you want to understand something, you use the proper or best available methodology.

Hard numbers and facts don't exist in history. Maybe in contemporary history, but official sources lie too

 

[gladius2metal]

Hard numbers and facts don't exist in history. Maybe in contemporary history, but official sources lie too

well, they definitely don't appear out of nowhere. I agree that a lot of stuff in History is basically "story", but that doesn't mean we should throw in the towel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

edit: thrown->throw, still sounds wrong