![*This is to Carefulwiththatoxygen because we were talking about this today and I wanna explain this more because it’s awesome*
*Also I lifted this from the appendix of Decoding Clausewitz, and it’s really important so I’M SORRY MR.SUMIDA IF I AM ANGERING YOU WITH MY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT*
So here’s what the normal methodology of most social sciences/history is:
Verifiable Historical Fact (VHF) + Reflection of the Verifiable Historical Fact (RVHF) = Theory [bounded with qualifications] (T)
The issue that Clausewitz (and the Pragmatists have) is that we never know the whole situation of any historical event, either because it wasn’t 100% recorded (which is becoming less of an issue via computers but is still a problem), or mostly because we very rarely know why all of the actors in the event did what they did because we don’t know/100% understand their minds. Furthermore, the Theory created by this analysis creates a right/wrong dichotomy (do this not that) which only claims to tell us whether a person’s choice was right or not, not why it was a hard choice to make.
So Clausewitz made a new methodology/method of teaching, which goes like this:
The holes in the Verifiable Historical Fact (VHF) are supplemented by Theory-Based Surmises, IE what we claim to know about the way the world works (TBS), and the student goes through the event in their head, creating a Synthetic Experience (SE). This experience is reflected upon (RSE) with the goal of creating an Improved Capacity for Judgement (ICJ).
I’ve said before why I think that this is a better method for teaching People of Action (rather than, say, academics), but I’ll say it again: by focusing on why a person made a decision we can understand why it was a difficult or easy decision to make, which makes it easier for us to make these decisions. The Theory here isn’t ingrained, it’s a variable in the experiment so we can change it.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m76av0WKYP1qbk3xso1_400.png)
*This is to Carefulwiththatoxygen because we were talking about this today and I wanna explain this more because it’s awesome*
*Also I lifted this from the appendix of Decoding Clausewitz, and it’s really important so I’M SORRY MR.SUMIDA IF I AM ANGERING YOU WITH MY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT*
So here’s what the normal methodology of most social sciences/history is:
Verifiable Historical Fact (VHF) + Reflection of the Verifiable Historical Fact (RVHF) = Theory [bounded with qualifications] (T)
The issue that Clausewitz (and the Pragmatists have) is that we never know the whole situation of any historical event, either because it wasn’t 100% recorded (which is becoming less of an issue via computers but is still a problem), or mostly because we very rarely know why all of the actors in the event did what they did because we don’t know/100% understand their minds. Furthermore, the Theory created by this analysis creates a right/wrong dichotomy (do this not that) which only claims to tell us whether a person’s choice was right or not, not why it was a hard choice to make.
So Clausewitz made a new methodology/method of teaching, which goes like this:
The holes in the Verifiable Historical Fact (VHF) are supplemented by Theory-Based Surmises, IE what we claim to know about the way the world works (TBS), and the student goes through the event in their head, creating a Synthetic Experience (SE). This experience is reflected upon (RSE) with the goal of creating an Improved Capacity for Judgement (ICJ).
I’ve said before why I think that this is a better method for teaching People of Action (rather than, say, academics), but I’ll say it again: by focusing on why a person made a decision we can understand why it was a difficult or easy decision to make, which makes it easier for us to make these decisions. The Theory here isn’t ingrained, it’s a variable in the experiment so we can change it.
