The Independent Variables of Reductionism and the Writing of History

In the simplest of terms; reductionism is a path to knowledge that relies on reducing the observable particular into the smallest units possible and then analyzing the various parts to determine a solution to the question at hand. You arrive at a solution by viewing the units as part of a causal chain and the researcher removes various units until the outcome of the particular changes and the structure of the unit chain is set up in a hierarchical form. The implication of reductionism is that independent variables exist and they can be identified through experimentation. Reductionism is only one means of conducting scientific research.

Another similar approach involves an ecological method whereby values are placed on simplified units and it delves into how the units interact when they are viewed from a perspective that considers how systems are formed. The ecological method is inclusive while the reductionism results in an exclusive perspective. Social science values a reductionist outlook because unlike the ecological approach, reductionism allows for the generalization of the past that sets up a method to forecast the future.

Reductionism allows for the creation of supposed rules and laws that contain a certain amount of certainty; enough to make predictions that seem to bear substantive results when dealing with human affairs. The problem of course, is that all of these rules and laws have very little substance backing them up, but in the case of social science this reality results in the inclusion of an equation added to counter the uncertainty.

A set of explanations have been set up by social scientists to claim static and universal applicability or collectivity to prop up reductionism. The reason for social scientists adherence to these seemingly incongruous propositions is that they avoid the problem of multiple causes, the passage of time, cultural and individual diversity, the proliferation of explanations, and finally, the real difficulty that would result from forecasting.

For historians, explanation is the primary focus that they concentrate on and consequently all generalizations are subordinated to explanation. For historians; the general is the unique. Historians generalize for specific reasons by practicing particular generalization. On the other hand, social scientists will embed narratives within generalizations. They take these actions because they are concerned with confirming or refuting hypothesis. Meanwhile, historians work with limited , rather than universal generalizations. Historians uncover and discuss tendencies, and or patterns but not laws as the social scientists do. Historians are trained to believe in contingent, not categorical causation. Historians will reject the idea that it is possible to identify independent variables. Causes always have antecedents. Another point to consider is that historians do not rely on modeling and instead concentrate on simulations; that is because simulations do not result in forecasts while models are purposely constructed to provide models. It is also a well established practice among historians to trace processes from a knowledge of outcomes through their use of narratives. Process tracing by social scientists converts historical narratives into analytical causal explanations, thus establishing a clear distinction with the approach of history.

We have established that historians generalize from their knowledge of particular outcomes; or as they are also commonly referred to as particular generalization. Historians understand processes from particular generalizations. Thus, for historians, generalization does not mean nor does it result in forecasting. The situation is quite different for social scientists. The important point that must be emphasized is that while there is a gulf that exists between history and social science; they are both scientific. Both seek to establish a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible area and connecting consensus to the real world.

An Exercise in the Historiographical Approach to Understanding the Writing of History

For those who are engaged in the writing of history a preliminary consideration makes it important to approach the task with an eye cast on the topic to be chosen and an awareness of how and where the soon published work will 'fit' within the body of published works. The second, historiographic issue bears with it a question of responsibility that some historians often overlook or pay only cursory attention to. Still others, accept a sense of historiographic 'placement' yet do so with an ancillary question of responsibility; how important is their responsibility and to what degree should the historiographic obligation be? Is it a trivial duty superseded by the topic and argumentation of the writer because it is for all intents a matter of the historian's interests. And if this course should be chosen and the historian becomes more of a writer in that s/he produces a work that fits squarely within the confines of accepted knowledge instead of representing a fresh or innovative text that extends the established doctrine into an area that few if any readers and practitioners of history have little or any understanding of? Is it just in the end a matter of meeting publication requirements for someones CV?

In other words, are the topical interests of the historian sacrosanct when viewed against the backdrop of history as a professional body that operates within a defined set of historiographical principles. The question of a community of historians having the authority to oversee topical distinctions thus taking those criteria away from individual historians working an assumption of what is simply interesting. A group think approach would point directly at an assumption of responsibility that could go so far as to point out an obligation raised by historiography that would make it incumbent upon authors to provide historiographic justification for their work.

It could also be argued, apart from the 'dictatorial powers' gained by historians as a community over an individual historian, that such a proposition would introduce a new and valuable sense of vigorous critiques and force new standards of fairness of the critical exchanges to be established which would reign in uncontrollable unprofessionalism and introduce a new civility in historiographical debates based on a welcomed critical sensibility.

The most obvious problems with such a 'standardized' approach would be to take history writing from the masses and further embed it within a specialized and separate body of individuals who would be answerable to no one but themselves that would create an elitist approach to the dissemination of history. What would become of public histories based on the interviews obtained from common individuals relating their own experiences as demonstrated by the fairly recent growth of oral histories and their attendant broadening of the scope of collected history from a bottom up perspective? Gone would be any possibility for history to be gained from a non-elitist perspective from the unprofessionally sanctioned and lowest members of society.

The professional historian, with considerations of historiography dominating his approach to history is professionally bound to consider establishing the ideal of establishing and maintaining historiographical balance, which takes into consideration the task of historiography viewed through the contributions of individual historical works to communicate important issues or questions. These issues or questions have endless potential. Such an extensive set of issues and questions necessitates a vigorous and ongoing historiographical interplay of possibilities to segment the issues and questions that historiography is intended to address by determining the proportion of what issues and questions would merit future attention. So in the end, it is criticism that determines which approaches to research and writing that address the needs of historiography.

7/25/09 President Barack Obama Weekly Radio Address

Weekly Address: Health Insurance Reform, Small Business and Your Questions
Posted by Jesse Lee

The President discusses a key factor that has been considered in the development of the health insurance reform proposals that are being considered: the impact of reform on small business.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a major report on the subject in conjunction with this address -- read the report as a web page, in pdf form, or through Slideshare.

read the transcript

During the address, the President asks that small business owners and employees give us their comments and questions on the report. What are your experiences with health care as somebody involved in small business, and what are your thoughts and questions on the new CEA report in light of those experiences?

Give us your response here through WhiteHouse.gov, or if you are a member of the social network LinkedIn, go take part in the discussion CEA Chair Christina Romer initiated there. Romer will be answering some of most penetrating responses in a live video discussion on Wednesday at 3:00 PM EDT.

Obama hawks health care overhaul, citing study

By Tom Raum
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama, citing a new White House study suggesting that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies, said Saturday the disparity is "unsustainable - it's unacceptable."

"And it's going to change when I sign health insurance reform into law," the president said in his weekly Internet and radio address.

A new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers said small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees. As a result, fewer of them do so and the number has been shrinking further in these hard economic times.

It was released Saturday as part of the administration's aggressive campaign to build public and congressional support for Obama's health care efforts

Obama had called for Congress to vote on health legislation by the August recess, but when it became clear this week lawmakers would miss that deadline, he said he expects a bill by year-end.

Separately, congressional budget scorekeepers say one highly touted idea for saving money from Medicare to finance a health overhaul would only yield modest savings. In a setback for Obama, the Congressional Budget Office says that creating a powerful commission to recommend Medicare cuts would produce only about $2 billion in savings over 10 years. Cuts the commission agreed on would go into effect unless Congress overrides them.

On the issue regarding small businesses, the White House study said only 49 percent of businesses with three to nine workers and 78 percent of companies with 10 to 24 workers offered any type of health insurance to their employees in 2008. In contrast, 99 percent of companies with more than 200 workers offered health insurance.

Small companies pay proportionately more than big ones because they lack bargaining power and face higher administrative costs, the study found. It said that effectively levied a "heavy tax" on small businesses and their employees.

"Right now, they are getting crushed by skyrocketing health care costs," Obama said, citing the report.

Republicans dismissed the new report as more political propaganda by the administration as it struggles to win approval of its centerpiece domestic priority.

"There's a reason why almost every employer and small business group is opposed to the Democrats' government takeover of health care, and that's because it would impose new job-killing taxes during a recession," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "No report can change that."

And in the weekly GOP address, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, vice chair of the House Republican Conference, said, "America's small businesses will pay a high price." Citing a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, she said Democratic-written proposals would destroy a million more jobs than the economy has already lost.

She called the Democratic efforts "a prescription for disaster - one that will put Washington bureaucrats in charge of your family's personal medical decision."

A proposal in the House calls for employers with a total payroll above $250,000 to offer health insurance to their workers or face a surtax of as much as 8 percent. A Senate committee version would require all businesses, except those with fewer than 25 employees, to provide health coverage or pay a $750 fine per year for each worker.

Congress is weighing plans to bring small businesses into the program that would exempt them from such stiff penalties.

Among the provisions in draft legislation viewed favorably by the administration are: an "insurance exchange" allowing small businesses that meet certain criteria to be able to purchase health insurance from a multitude of plans; and tax credits to help small businesses pay for the coverage.

Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said such provisions would enable small businesses to be "more able to compete with the big boys" in selling their goods and services and "able to compete fairly on a level playing field with big businesses to attract the best workers,"

"The vast majority of small businesses, they'll see their burdens absolutely lessened by the expansion of coverage," Romer said in a conference call with reporters. "So they are absolutely going to be more competitive."

Obama decried what he said were tactics by opponents to block health care overhaul "as a way to inflict political damage on my administration. I'll leave it to them to explain that to the American people."

"Today, after a lot of hard work in Congress, we are closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and provide more choices for our families and businesses," Obama said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, invited small business owners from across the country to a round-table discussion with senior GOP officials on Tuesday to discuss the struggles facing small business. Among those invited, said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring, are those with businesses in the congressional district of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, who have raised questions about the cost of the health care efforts.

Upright Standing Hominids With Ape-Like Brains During the Miocene

Now that we have established that the hominids of some 7 million years ago living during the Miocene period (the entire Miocene era spanned 24 to 5 million years before the present, or mybp) had similar behavioral patterns found in contemporary chimpanzees, we can delve further into the great apes and hominids of that time in the past.

Anoiapithecus brevirostris, whose remains of a jaw and of a great ape's face are shown at the top of this post is a recently discovered collection of bones found from the Abocador de Can Mata site in Spain. A paper recently published in the journal PNAS under the title, “A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade.” Points out that "this hominoid, aptly named Lluc or enlightenment in Latin, is that it has a very modern face… In other words it's got a reduced facial prognathism (having a protrusion of the jaws, bulging of the jaws). The specimen includes a fragmented cranium that with most of the face preserved and the associated mandible. While the muzzle of Lluc is so reduced that only find comparable values within the genus Homo, Lluc's got an array of primitive features, such as super thick dental enamel and teeth with bulbar cusps. The mandible is also very robust. All of which are characteristics of afropithecids — primitive hominoids from the African Middle Miocene.

The authors explain: "But other more derived features, like the forward positioning of the zygomatic bone and a bold mandibular torus along with a a reduction in the maxillary sinus, are shared only with the kenyapithecines. Kenyapithecines are a group of apes that ever dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago, and are collectively grouped in the genera Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus.

They continue: "Ultimately, you can see how this specimen (IPS43000), Anoiapithecus brevirostris, has a combined a set of features that until now had never been found from the fossil record. The array of features allows us enables to identify two possibilities to be the ancestral form to our family (Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus). The authors take a leap of faith here arguing that when one takes into account that these two genera cannot be considered members of the family Hominidae yet, because they lack its basic diagnostic features, they find it obvious that the origin of our family is a phenomenon that took place on the Mediterranean region during the time span comprised between their arrival from Africa by about 15 Ma, and about 13 Ma, when we began to find in els Hostalets the first members of our family.

The authors say: "But other more derived features, like the forward positioning of the zygomatic bone and a bold mandibular torus along with a a reduction in the maxillary sinus, are shared only with the kenyapithecines. Kenyapithecines are a group of apes that ever dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago, and are collectively grouped in the genera Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus.

Summing up their findings, the authors conclude: "Ultimately, you can see how this specimen (IPS43000), Anoiapithecus brevirostris, has a combined a set of features that until now had never been found from the fossil record. The array of features allows us enables to identify two possibilities to be the ancestral form to our family (Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus). The authors take a leap of faith here arguing that when one takes into account that these two genera cannot be considered members of the family Hominidae yet, because they lack its basic diagnostic features, they find it obvious that the origin of our family is a phenomenon that took place on the Mediterranean region during the time span comprised between their arrival from Africa by about 15 Ma, and about 13 Ma, when we began to find in els Hostalets the first members of our family."

It is classified as a great ape with many afropithecid and several kenyapithecine features that the European Guide To Science Journalism Training explains: "The morphological studies carried out on the fossil remains prove the presence of physical features which are typical of modern hominids (such as the nasal opening is very wide behind, a high position of the root of the zygomatic arch and a very deep palate). These are associated with primordial and derived features (such as a thick dental enamel, a morphology of globular dental cusps and a strong jaw) especially of those great apes from Middle Miocene of Africa named "Afropitecidi". An artist's reconstructive drawing of Anoiapithecus brevirostris is shown below.

The European Guide To Science Journalism Training continues: "Apart from these distinctive elements, there are other characteristics that have never reached the countries of the Mediterranean Europe. They are: the fore position of the zygomatic arch (formed by the (a bone extending forward from the side of the skull, over the opening of the ear) and the temporal process of the zygomatic (the side of the cheekbone), the two being united by an oblique suture; the tendon of the Temporalis passes medial to the arch to gain insertion into the coronoid process of the mandible), a very protruding mandible and a very reduced jawbone breast which are specific of the African Kenyapithecines (Kenyapitecus and Griphopithecus).

The European Guide To Science Journalism Training concludes: "It is possible to assume that our origins must be likely searched in the Mediterranean area and not in the African area as it has always been thought of. In truth, the researchers, responsible for the discovery, admit that hominids can be diversified in Eurasia, starting from the Kenyapithecines ancestors - of African origins - evolving later into Pongidae (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) and Homininae (Homo genre and African great apes)."

Above are the skeletal remains of "Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a Miocene hominoid from Spain ... What's special about it is that it appears to be the closest thing to a last common ancestor of all of the great apes. In an article Moyà-Solà S, Köhler M, Alba DM, Casanovas-Vilar I, Galindo J (2004) Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a New Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain. Science 306(5700):1339-1344., the following abstract is provided:

"We describe a partial skeleton with facial cranium of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus gen. et sp. nov., a new Middle Miocene (12.5 to 13 million years ago) ape from Barranc de Can Vila 1 (Barcelona, Spain). It is the first known individual of this age that combines well-preserved cranial, dental, and postcranial material. The thorax, lumbar region, and wrist provide evidence of modern ape–like orthograde body design, and the facial morphology includes the basic derived great ape features. The new skeleton reveals that early great apes retained primitive monkeylike characters associated with a derived body structure that permits upright postures of the trunk. Pierolapithecus, hence, does not fit the theoretical model that predicts that all characters shared by extant great apes were present in their last common ancestor, but instead points to a large amount of homoplasy in ape evolution. The overall pattern suggests that Pierolapithecus is probably close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans."

The distinguishing characteristic between the early hominids and the great apes was focused on two things: the reduction of canine teeth and the ability of upright posture while walking. And it seems that woodland habitats were closely associated with the hominid transition to upright locomotion. Being upright allowed the hominids to see above the tall grasses of the grasslands that surrounded the trees and the upright positioning of the hominid became most pronounced with the arrival of Homo erectus. A second thought behind the changeover to upright posture is that it exposed the hominid to less heat from the sun. In addition, a loss of body hair was taking place at the time of erectus because less hair allowed for the transference of sweat that was no longer trapped by excess body hair and thus allowed for more efficient cooling of erectus. So the habitat which allowed for the evolutionary transition of hominid was the area between the grasslands and forests and certainly brought about a change in diet since there were more carcasses of animals strewn about the grasslands because that was the killing territory of the big cats. Additionally, the shrinking of the hominid canines was important because the apes kept theirs for fighting amongst themselves while the hominids, who often subsisted on vegetative materials such as tbers and bulbs had a greater need for more compact canine teeth. But remained pretty much constant throughout the period was the maintenance of brain sie as brains in hominids did not increase in size for several million years.

In many ways the Homo lineage was a spin-off of the lineages of the great bipedal woodland apes who evolved into larger sized creatures who were vegetarians and eventually died out after about of a million years as they reached an evolutionary deadend. Meanwhile the omni-vore characteristics of Homo allowed for continued growth. And that is where the next installment will pick up.

Is History Dependent on Scientific Methodology Or Are Sciences Historically Directed?

When we last discussed the historian's craft to borrow the title phrase made famous by Marc Bloch we delved into the relationship between time and space and we drew the comparison they have to the landscapes produced by cartographers. But unlike the cartographer, the historian does not gaze upon a vista of terrain that he can put down onto paper. The historian, instead, must deal most often with the residues left from the past. These residues of the past give a structure that exists through time and give the historian the ability to draw inferences from what has survived to the present.

The most obvious distinction between history and science comes with the very practice of science: The workings of the scientific method are such as to achieve consensus by many scientists testing the resultant facts brought by scientific inquiry over time. Science gains its particular distinction from other modes of human inquiry because science is structured in such a way that it must assemble reproducible results. When the matter of human activities over time are studied; science and its methodology prove less capable of providing consensual knowledge; instead, science can only serve as a model for historians in search of a method that would bring continuity to their practice because the sciences, in particular the sciences were becoming more methodologically historical.

With the discovery of 'deep time' in geology and evolution of organisms in biology from the late 18th century to the mid 19th century, the immutably static and timeless nature of science suddenly took on a significance that could actually be measured by aspects of change and development. By the time quantum mechanics were being discussed in the early 20th century, the importance of relativity of measurement had been added to the way in which science viewed the universe. The importance of these changes to the way science developed as a means of inquiry meant that scientists had constituted science as a means of deriving structures from processes: The end result of these developments was to make science a form of historical inquiry.

Much like scientists, historians engage in thought experiments and it is what makes the past inseparable from the present inhabited by the historian. And the historian must employ a delicately constructed yet powerful imagination to make the narrative about the past sufficiently prescient to the reader. History can only be truly constructed from sources that firmly place it within the milieu of the period being studied; it is certainly not an artistic representation because of this dependence on source materials. So when we question whether history is a science we must include in our inquiry what separates 'actual replicability' of precise means and methodologies from 'virtual replicability' associated with thought experiments.

Metaphorically, the cartographic association to the elements of time and space analyzed by history is important to reintroduce here. Maps are dependent on the degree of believability that they can bring to their human observers and that is achieved through a process the begins with the mapmakers assimilation of a real landscape or territory through a process of representation that results in the actual persuadability of the map.

The correlation to historical methodology takes a similar path in that the historian will begin the recounting of the past by using archival sources that are interpreted through the historian's particular perspective is employed and readies the history to be presented for the judgement of a human audience which will employ a collective as well as individualized view of the historian's completed work.

Missing from the work of historians distinctive from that of social scientists is the absence of 'scientifically-based' equations, graphs, matrices, and the other social science-based modes of proving their inquiries. The distinction between the way history is done and social science is done brings to the forefront of our discussion the question of whether there is such a thing as an independent variable. Historians do not do history with their attention focused on independent and dependent variables. Historians deal with the interdependency of variables by searching for and connecting them through their passage through time and thus there is no need to create this bifurcation of interdependency into independent and dependent variables. The thought that all variables are dependent on all other variables becomes key in understanding the specific difference between how history and the social sciences operate and is akin to the difference between how a reductionist and ecological view of reality differ and will be the focus of a future discussion.