History just became a much more involved subject. Besides Earth’s history, we now have Catian history, Lamian history, and that of whatever the time is called leading up to the Diaspora and the various sapient species separating from each other. I assume the proprietor (Smokey?) is referring to the American Civil War in the first panel — rather than the current war, but I might be wrong. Miral might not have the cultural connections to catch all his references. Learning a people’s history helps you understand their present, but the fact that the Empire’s capital and heart are on Terra may not be enough for her to see why studying this world’s history should come above studying her own. She needs both.
After Teresa’s statements in 678 and this scene, I’m even more curious what the dragons back in the Sol system would have to say about this phenomenon. And why they didn’t prepare Teresa.
He’s talking about the only war on slavery that Miral’s aware of, the one she just left.
And, yes, there’s all kinds of history to be taught now. And guess which poor guy has to collate it all for coherent teaching?
History – as almost anything – is way more complex as it’s normally
shown. You always have to take into account who’s telling the tale.
And what they know or assume about what happened.
Just two random examples. A certain George Orwell fought in the
Spanish Civil War in early 20th century. He claimed that none of
the sides did tell the true story. Sometimes there were a battle
that neither side acknowledged. Other times both sides claimed to
have a fight that he said had never happened. At least not where
they put it. He was there on that day.
Another thing is all the tales about Nero. Perhaps he really was
a mad man. Certainly not very nice. But you have to know that we
only have the perspective of his enemies …
While it is not always possible, often one can find versions of history
that have been written by, so to speak, the losers. Although those in
authority who don’t want those versions known can make it difficult.
Which is one reason that the study of history is so fascinating, to seek
out alternative versions and then examine related writings and legend
to try and figure out the truth. Or as close as we can get, at least.
Too many “authorities”, historian, scientist, doctor… get locked in to one
idea or theory and work to bury any data that does not agree with their
chosen view. Ego and pride play large roles.
Scientist never stick to one pet theory. That’s a misinterpretation..
Sometimes used intentionally.
A scientific hypothesis needs one thing to be considered as a
valuable theory. There needs to be a way it could be falsified.
In the sense that there’s claims you could try to prove or disprove.
And you do try. Over and over again.
If you prove your theory yet another time, you say “ok, this seems
to be pretty solid”.
If you disprove it, the real fun begins. Than you know you’re onto
something new. Something that might give you more insight into how
nature works.
A real scientist analysis their studies, tries to reproduce them,
tries to finds errors in their experiments.
And they make very very sure before they claim something is that
way or another.
That’s way it’s so easy to always find someone who’s not entirely
convinced by the work of their colleagues.
It’s not because they’re wrong, but because there’s always a
mathematical possibility that things are yet a bit more complicated.
Example: you hold a small rock at arms length while standing on the
surface of planet Earth.
According to a well proven theory you will expect the rock to drop if
you let it go. Because this has been proven and observed over and over
and over again…
But could still be someone pointing out that there’s a (pure mathematical)
possibility that the rock flies away into orbit.
(Actually, there IS this very possibility according to quantum physics.
But you’d have billions of people have dropping rocks for countless
eons before you could hope to observe it)
I don’t want this to become a discussion of COVID and the vaccines, but
I will use it to make a point.
There are many scientists, researchers, and health professionals who,
upon questioning the “consensus” have been threatened, fired, had their
funding cut, even threatened with arrest. The COVID and vaccine proponents
do not want any dissent, and will not examine their own assertions.
The same goes for climate change. Dissenters are treated the same way,
even called “deniers” and slandered about what they actually believe.
There is too much monied influence and politics in science these days.
But even in ordinary fields, there is a marked tendency for older
scientists who have become well-known for a certain theory to dig in
and reject any new research which disagrees with them. Maybe they fear
losing fame or credibility, or their own pride will not allow them to
admit that someone else might have a better theory than theirs, but
it does happen.
History just became a much more involved subject. Besides Earth’s history, we now have Catian history, Lamian history, and that of whatever the time is called leading up to the Diaspora and the various sapient species separating from each other. I assume the proprietor (Smokey?) is referring to the American Civil War in the first panel — rather than the current war, but I might be wrong. Miral might not have the cultural connections to catch all his references. Learning a people’s history helps you understand their present, but the fact that the Empire’s capital and heart are on Terra may not be enough for her to see why studying this world’s history should come above studying her own. She needs both.
After Teresa’s statements in 678 and this scene, I’m even more curious what the dragons back in the Sol system would have to say about this phenomenon. And why they didn’t prepare Teresa.
He’s talking about the only war on slavery that Miral’s aware of, the one she just left.
And, yes, there’s all kinds of history to be taught now. And guess which poor guy has to collate it all for coherent teaching?
History – as almost anything – is way more complex as it’s normally
shown. You always have to take into account who’s telling the tale.
And what they know or assume about what happened.
Just two random examples. A certain George Orwell fought in the
Spanish Civil War in early 20th century. He claimed that none of
the sides did tell the true story. Sometimes there were a battle
that neither side acknowledged. Other times both sides claimed to
have a fight that he said had never happened. At least not where
they put it. He was there on that day.
Another thing is all the tales about Nero. Perhaps he really was
a mad man. Certainly not very nice. But you have to know that we
only have the perspective of his enemies …
While it is not always possible, often one can find versions of history
that have been written by, so to speak, the losers. Although those in
authority who don’t want those versions known can make it difficult.
Which is one reason that the study of history is so fascinating, to seek
out alternative versions and then examine related writings and legend
to try and figure out the truth. Or as close as we can get, at least.
Too many “authorities”, historian, scientist, doctor… get locked in to one
idea or theory and work to bury any data that does not agree with their
chosen view. Ego and pride play large roles.
Scientist never stick to one pet theory. That’s a misinterpretation..
Sometimes used intentionally.
A scientific hypothesis needs one thing to be considered as a
valuable theory. There needs to be a way it could be falsified.
In the sense that there’s claims you could try to prove or disprove.
And you do try. Over and over again.
If you prove your theory yet another time, you say “ok, this seems
to be pretty solid”.
If you disprove it, the real fun begins. Than you know you’re onto
something new. Something that might give you more insight into how
nature works.
A real scientist analysis their studies, tries to reproduce them,
tries to finds errors in their experiments.
And they make very very sure before they claim something is that
way or another.
That’s way it’s so easy to always find someone who’s not entirely
convinced by the work of their colleagues.
It’s not because they’re wrong, but because there’s always a
mathematical possibility that things are yet a bit more complicated.
Example: you hold a small rock at arms length while standing on the
surface of planet Earth.
According to a well proven theory you will expect the rock to drop if
you let it go. Because this has been proven and observed over and over
and over again…
But could still be someone pointing out that there’s a (pure mathematical)
possibility that the rock flies away into orbit.
(Actually, there IS this very possibility according to quantum physics.
But you’d have billions of people have dropping rocks for countless
eons before you could hope to observe it)
I don’t want this to become a discussion of COVID and the vaccines, but
I will use it to make a point.
There are many scientists, researchers, and health professionals who,
upon questioning the “consensus” have been threatened, fired, had their
funding cut, even threatened with arrest. The COVID and vaccine proponents
do not want any dissent, and will not examine their own assertions.
The same goes for climate change. Dissenters are treated the same way,
even called “deniers” and slandered about what they actually believe.
There is too much monied influence and politics in science these days.
But even in ordinary fields, there is a marked tendency for older
scientists who have become well-known for a certain theory to dig in
and reject any new research which disagrees with them. Maybe they fear
losing fame or credibility, or their own pride will not allow them to
admit that someone else might have a better theory than theirs, but
it does happen.