数字游戏还是科学史?20世纪70年代计量学和当今数字史中的精确与公正

Q2 Arts and Humanities History of Humanities Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1086/721305
Antonia von Schöning
{"title":"数字游戏还是科学史?20世纪70年代计量学和当今数字史中的精确与公正","authors":"Antonia von Schöning","doi":"10.1086/721305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By the time of the publication of Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman’s Time on the Cross in 1974, quantitative history had become an important, yet controversial, trend around the globe. Time on the Cross, an economic history of slavery in the American South, prompted a fierce debate among historians. The issue at stake was the use of quantitative methods and the role of computers in what was called “cliometrics.” Fogel and Engerman claimed that their monograph replaced the uncertainties of traditional, narrative history with hard scientific facts, verified by computers and mathematical techniques. But critics found outright errors in their use and interpretation of the quantitative data and pointed to the danger of dehumanizing the study of history if it is left to a machine. This essay retraces the debate and critically analyzes the promises of exactitude formulated in cliometric discourse in order to ask what lessons can be learned for the challenges digital humanities faces today.","PeriodicalId":36904,"journal":{"name":"History of Humanities","volume":"7 1","pages":"133 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Numbers Game or Scientific History? Exactitude and Justice in 1970s Cliometrics and in Digital History Today\",\"authors\":\"Antonia von Schöning\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/721305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By the time of the publication of Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman’s Time on the Cross in 1974, quantitative history had become an important, yet controversial, trend around the globe. Time on the Cross, an economic history of slavery in the American South, prompted a fierce debate among historians. The issue at stake was the use of quantitative methods and the role of computers in what was called “cliometrics.” Fogel and Engerman claimed that their monograph replaced the uncertainties of traditional, narrative history with hard scientific facts, verified by computers and mathematical techniques. But critics found outright errors in their use and interpretation of the quantitative data and pointed to the danger of dehumanizing the study of history if it is left to a machine. This essay retraces the debate and critically analyzes the promises of exactitude formulated in cliometric discourse in order to ask what lessons can be learned for the challenges digital humanities faces today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Humanities\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"133 - 146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/721305\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

到1974年罗伯特·W·福格尔和斯坦利·L·恩格尔曼的《十字架上的时间》出版时,量化历史已经成为全球一种重要但有争议的趋势。《十字架上的时间》是一部关于美国南部奴隶制的经济史,在历史学家中引发了激烈的争论。关键问题是定量方法的使用以及计算机在所谓的“计量学”中的作用。Fogel和Engerman声称,他们的专著用经过计算机和数学技术验证的硬科学事实取代了传统叙事历史的不确定性。但批评者发现,他们在使用和解释定量数据时存在明显错误,并指出,如果把历史研究留给机器,就会有失去人性的危险。本文回顾了这场辩论,并批判性地分析了计量话语中所表达的准确性承诺,以期了解数字人文学科在当今面临的挑战中可以吸取什么教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Numbers Game or Scientific History? Exactitude and Justice in 1970s Cliometrics and in Digital History Today
By the time of the publication of Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman’s Time on the Cross in 1974, quantitative history had become an important, yet controversial, trend around the globe. Time on the Cross, an economic history of slavery in the American South, prompted a fierce debate among historians. The issue at stake was the use of quantitative methods and the role of computers in what was called “cliometrics.” Fogel and Engerman claimed that their monograph replaced the uncertainties of traditional, narrative history with hard scientific facts, verified by computers and mathematical techniques. But critics found outright errors in their use and interpretation of the quantitative data and pointed to the danger of dehumanizing the study of history if it is left to a machine. This essay retraces the debate and critically analyzes the promises of exactitude formulated in cliometric discourse in order to ask what lessons can be learned for the challenges digital humanities faces today.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History of Humanities
History of Humanities Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Reading Eric Hayot, Rens Bod, and Lorraine Daston on What the Humanities Do :The Orient in Utrecht: Adriaan Reland (1676–1718), Arabist, Cartographer, Antiquarian and Scholar of Comparative Religion Writing and Reading Today: The History of the Humanities Tomorrow How Diverse Is the History of the Humanities and Does It Matter? Notes on Contributors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1