TITLE: How Science -- and Computing -- Are Changing History
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: July 13, 2012 12:02 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
While reading
<A HREF="http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture/">
   a recent Harvard Magazine article</A>
about Eric Mazur's peer instruction technique in physics
teaching, I ran across a link to an older paper that fascinated
me even more!
<A HREF="http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england">
   Who Killed the Men of England?</A>
tells several stories of research at the intersection of history,
archaeology, genomics, evolution, demography, and simulation,
such as the conquest of Roman England by the Anglo Saxons.

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
Not only in this instance, but across entire fields of inquiry,
the traditional boundaries between history and prehistory have
been melting away as the study of the human past based on the
<B>written</B> record increasingly incorporates the <B>material</B>
record of the natural and physical sciences.  Recognizing this
shift, and seeking to establish fruitful collaborations, a group
of Harvard and MIT scholars have begun working together as part
of a new initiative for the study of the human past.  Organized
by [professor of medieval history Michael] McCormick, who studies
the fall of the Roman empire, the aim is to bring together
researchers from the physical, life, and computer sciences and
the humanities to explore the kinds of new data that will advance
our understanding of human history.

...  The study of the human past, in other words, has entered a
new phase in which <B>science</B> has begun to tell stories that
were once the sole domain of <B>humanists</B>.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love history as much as computing and was mesmerized by these
stories of how scientists reading the "material record" of the
world are adding to our knowledge of the human past.

However, this is more than simply a one-way path of information
flowing from scientists to humanists.  The scientific data and
models themselves are underconstrained.  The historians, cultural
anthropologists, and demographers are able to provide context
to the data and models and so extract even more meaning from them.
This is a true collaboration.  Very cool.

The rise of science is erasing boundaries between the disciplines
that we all studied in school.  Scholars are able to define new
disciplines, such as "the study of the human past", mentioned
in the passage above.  These disciplines are organized with a
greater focus on <B>what</B> is being studied than on <B>how</B>
we are studying it.

We are also blurring the line between history and pre-history.
It used to be that history required a written record, but that
is no longer a hard limit.  Science can read <EM>nature's</EM>
record.  Computer scientists can build models using genomic data
and migration data that suggest possible paths of change when the
written and scientific record are incomplete.  These ideas become
part of the raw material that humanists use to construct a
coherent story of the past.

This change in how we are able to study the world highlights the
importance of a broad education, something I've written about a
few times recently
[
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2012-01.html#e2012-01-23T16_06_26.htm">
   1</A> |
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2011-07.html#e2011-07-15T16_25_44.htm">
   2</A> |
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2012-07.html#e2012-07-05T14_48_06.htm">
   3</A>
]
and
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2005-07.html#e2005-07-26T10_38_19.htm">
   not so recently</A>.
This sort of scholarship is best done by people who are good at
several things, or at least curious and interested enough in
several things to get to know them intimately.  As I wrote in
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2011-06.html#e2011-06-17T12_28_19.htm">
   Failure and the Liberal Arts</A>,
it's important both not to be too narrowly trained and not to be
too narrowly "liberally educated".

Even at a place like Harvard, this can leave scholars in a quandary:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
McCormick is fired with enthusiasm for the future of his discipline.
"It is exciting.  I jump up every morning.  But it is also
challenging.  Division and department boundaries are real.  Even
with a generally supportive attitude, it is difficult [to raise
funds, to admit students who are excellent in more than one
discipline, and so on].  ..."
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I will continue to tell computer science students to take
courses from all over the university, not just from CS and math.
This is one point of influence I have as a professor, advisor, and
department head.  And I will continue to look for ways to encourage
non-CS students to take CS courses and students outside the sciences
to study science, including CS.  As that paragraph ends:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
"...  This is a whole new way of studying the past.  It is a unique
intellectual opportunity and practically all the pieces are in
place.  This should happen here--it will happen, whether we are part
of it or not."
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Here" doesn't have to be Harvard.  There is a lot of work to be
done.
-----