A

given history of something is a story without an author. The events, objects, and persons comprising the action act autonomously. Those elements in a history to which we attribute consciousness and intention act according to known and unknown laws.

The historian seeks and then explains the manifold of butterfly effects that comprise the subject under study. Histories are always already written, but they remain hidden until someone chooses to interpret for an audience.

Is science a type of history? After all, equations unfold in time and constitute the episodes and plots of the phenomena to which they are applied. But there are no conscious actors in scientific, qua scientific, narratives. If conscious actors are introduced, the narrative becomes historical, biographical, or autobiographical.

What about natural history museums? They presumable employ some type of scientific, historical narrative in their exhibits. Everything may be reducible to story, but it will always be someone’s responsibility–everyone’s actually–to decide which stories are better, truer, more meaningful than others.

Our very lives depend on making the right critical judgments and decisions.

It’s true. Otherwise the story of our times will someday cease to be told by historians in a non-existent future.

Share/Save