| MadSci Network: Science History |
The idea that history is repeated is an assumption we may make based on indirect observations (that is, on what we have learned and been taught). These indirect observations work to create a perception that history is repeated by giving us the sense that similar situations recur over time.
This perception is probably true. I say “probably” because I did not personally witness all the events which go into the perception, but I have learned or been taught them and am satisfied that they are, for the most part, true. It is extremely important to understand the validity and dependability of your sources. You can’t believe something just because you see it in a newspaper or on the Internet. Ultimately, you must use your own judgment about what sources of information (historical or otherwise) are reliable. Your ability to do this will increase with a good education and the development of your reasoning ability.
The appearance that history is repeated probably results from the fact that humans have a predictable set of attributes. Generally, we feel can predict what will happen in certain circumstances. For example, if I leave a wallet with some money in it sitting in a public place, I predict that it will eventually be picked up by someone. Given that, the chances are also good that the money will never get back to me (its rightful owner). I make this last prediction based on an assumption that most people are too greedy to return money they find even if they can identify the owner.
It’s important to note that I have no proof of this. It is an assumption based on a combination of actual and indirect (remember teaching and learning) observations. If we did this test (the wallet in public) as an actual experiment the results might not support my prediction and may vary with the part of the world in which we conduct the experiment. Some cultures may place more value on honesty than others.
The most famous example of history repeating itself (of which I am aware) is the attempted conquest of Northern Asia (what had been, until recently, the USSR) from the West. The earliest apparent record of this (or something like it) is for Julius Caesar (the great Roman conqueror) more that two thousand years ago. More recently, Russia was invaded by Napoleon Bonaparte of France (over two hundred years ago) and by Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany (just about fifty years ago). All three attempts were notoriously costly and unsuccessful. The general interpretation is that this resulted from an underestimation of the severity of the weather (winter), the logistics of supporting armies over such a vast expanse of territory, and the ability and willingness of the inhabitants to defend themselves. Pretty basic stuff.
Why, then, has this happened three times in recorded history? Presumably because the territory in question presents a nearly irresistible prize for imperial personalities (like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler).
In their simplest definition prophecies are predictions. There are some things you should remember about predictions.
If the prediction is made in a very general way, it is hard for it not to come true. I call this the "fortune cookie" syndrome. If the predictions concern themselves with simple "yes or no" kinds of events, like the flip of a coin, then the prophet is virtually guaranteed to be right half the time.
Also, some things are almost inevitable. I can predict right now that there will be an earthquake in California in the next year and have a very good chance of being right. If I make a vague prediction far enough into the future it is possible that It can be made to seem correct because of disputes about the interpretation of what I originally meant, especially because my prediction may have been translated many times through several languages. The bottom line is that no prophet has ever been shown, scientifically, to be accurate above the level of pure chance.
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Science History.