Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnswamps | Hacker News Reader

The article's argument seems to be semantical in nature. I don't think many people would argue that learning about history is useless. The author and I hold the exact same beliefs -- knowing that the Pilgrims landed in American in 1690 is useless, but knowing why they left, the rough state of colonization in America at the time, etc. is useful. But when people refer to "historical facts", they think of the former. It seems like he's just quibbling over the word "fact".

I would make a similar argument for geography. I don't really care where a particular country is and what borders it, unless it's in a broader context. Everyone should know that France borders Germany, if only because of WW2, or that India borders Pakistan. But I couldn't care less where Uganda is until something happens where its location is important. Then it stops being a fact and becomes important in context, so I'll look it up if I need to.

View on HN

Knowing that it was half a century after the reformation but before the English civil war, yet after the establishment of other colonies is important. Knowing that it was 1620 rather than 1619/1621 isn't important - but that's all you are tested on. Treating it as maths where being 1year out is completely wrong is stupid.

There's two problems with this approach:

1) A practical one: suppose you would be lenient on a test and allowed the students to be 5 years off. How much would that change? How many students are actually only a few years off? Is 5 years reasonable or should they be allowed to be 7 years off? What about the situation where a set of events are closer in time than your deviation?

2) One from generalization: if you have to know it was half a century after the reformation, you still know nothing if you don't know the reformation started in 1540 (I'm making this year up; it depends much on the country). Which still doesn't mean a thing if you don't know Michaelangelo died in 1480 (still making stuff up), which is 400 years after the Dark Ages started (...). Do you think they should know whether Raphael and Thomas of Aquinas lived in the same times? Should they know whether the Austrian-Hungarian empire existed already when Newton invented gravitation? The more facts you start relating, the more important precision becomes. The more you want to describe detailed chains of events, in which the details matter, the more facts you need to relate.

That's what happens if you teach the facts devoid of the relations. The history classes where they taught relations I got something out of. The others are just useless footnotes in my education.

There's a great parody of this kind of teaching by Mark Steele (UK Broadcaster).

Teacher> What did the Vikings come in?

Student>Ships miss?

Teacher>Wrong

Student>Long boats?

Teacher>No they came in hoards, that's what it says in the book

There's a good reason for the former definition of "fact".

It's what you're tested on in school.

My personal favorite history book of all time is "Japanese Culture", because it's not a typical "school history textbook" that has just name, date, and event. It's not about who conquered whom, and on what day and time it happened. It's about why X was a successful conquerer, and what happened to the place afterwards, things that actually bear significance through history and have left their mark on the society.

isbn: 0824821521 if anyone is interested.

I think that you've missed the point. Knowing that the Pilgrims landed in America in 1620 is very important! You have to memorize dates in order to place events in their proper context. I suggest you reread the article and then read his more detailed explanation here: http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/008/powell.html

1690?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com