Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ultranothing t1_iupbnfw wrote

Reply to comment by drdan82408a in Does Science Need History? A Conversation with Lorraine Daston by Maxwellsdemon17

>Science absolutely needs history and history absolutely needs science.

It's such an obvious question to answer that I can't imagine the discussion being anything more than a three-second clip of the lady going "uh, duh?"

66

drdan82408a t1_iupbw7v wrote

I read the article. It was more academical than that, but that was the upshot.

26

OtterProper t1_iuq6zry wrote

I believe you mean "academic" as the -ic does the work of the -al already, and has yet to reach the level of common parlance like redundancies such as "mythical", et al.

7

EpsomHorse t1_iuqcdat wrote

> It's such an obvious question to answer that I can't imagine the discussion being anything more than a three-second clip of the lady going "uh, duh?"

And yet watch the protests and groans when you tell a science major he needs to take three or four history classes. And witness the shrieks of terror when you tell a history major he needs to take three or four science classes.

So I'd say it ain't obvious at all.

15