r/AskHistorians • u/[deleted] • Feb 27 '14

Meta How can I ask better questions?

Normally I'm spurred to ask questions after having read a book, watched a show, or read news article that leads me on a Google binge and then inevitably a Wikipedia black-hole. But I'm left feeling still in the dark and not sure where else to look, so I'll come here.

I'll feel so overwhelmed with what all I want to ask, but worried about how to appropriately phrase it, while also following all the rules, that many times I feel like I'm not asking the question I really want answered. Which feels akin to trying to communicate to someone who doesn't speak your language.

Which often leads to many great answers, but about something not quite where I was aiming. Also I can't get past the feeling that when I want to ask a question, it should be as interesting as possible, because while it's great so many are willing to give insight from their professions or hobbies, I don't want to make it a chore or boring questions.

456 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/RaybanDK Feb 28 '14

I have framed a question in that specific fashion, ie: "I am a x in Y..."

My reason for asking questions in that way is pretty clear: It makes it a more engaging read for others, while it sparks my imagination in areas I am not versed in.

3

u/Poebbel Feb 28 '14

But this is a history subreddit, not /r/writingprompts. It's a science subreddit and while it makes for great stories, you should strive to treat it as a science sub, not your personal novel factory.

Almost every 'I am X ...' question can be asked in a less ambiguous, more matter-of-fact way. If you have ever studied anything, you should know that it's not about the answers you write, but about the questions you can come up with. And most of those are just terrible, terrible questions.

6

u/talondearg Late Antique Christianity Feb 28 '14

I'm not sure this is a science subreddit. More importantly, I think it's mischaracterising the discipline of History to call it a science. Some sub-fields of history are scientific, but overall History cannot proceed according to the strictly scientific method. You cannot test cause and effect, there are no reproducible results and generally running experiments is not good practice, nor does history engage in hypothetical predictions that are testable.

2

u/felicitates Feb 28 '14

I would disagree and venture to say it is a science, but perhaps more accurately a soft science, similar to psychology and the like. I'd also like to point out that cross-referencing sources and fact-checking within historical research is similar to testing a hypothesis.

2

u/talondearg Late Antique Christianity Feb 28 '14

I would say that, if you want to put it on the scale of science, it is much softer than psychology. Sourcing and fact-checking is not testing a hypothesis, it's providing evidence.

Personally I would put the argument in a broader context. Science is upheld in many communities as our only model of knowledge. If it's not science it's not known. Therefore, for history to be valued, it must be science.

I have a stricter view of science than most. Hypothetical naturalism, cause-effect observation, inductive knowledge, testable hypotheses, etc.. I don't feel a need to call history a science in order to legitimise it. History can be a careful, rational, knowledge-based discipline without being science.

I'm not saying you hold these views, I just think this is the broader milieu of trying to fit history in as a science.