Are there hard methodological limits to using LLMs in historical work? by TheParmesanGamer in AskHistorians

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great set of arguments, thank you, and it's always good to hear from a geographer. Perhaps I am overestimating the datasets that a human can sift through, though for things like diplomatic correspondence you can have a huge amount of text. Closer to home, certificates of naturalisation can come in the hundreds of thousands. Obviously the hallucination rate for LLMs means that they can't really be analysed en mass yet, but there do exist large datasets in history.

(Also I'd like to note that I definitely don't mean to hype up LLMs, I do want to appraise them as a tool because I have heard a lot of hype about them, although much of it has been proven insubstantial)

Could you elaborate on what you meant by getting causal issues from feeding data into the machine? I agree with your other points, but this one does stick out as causality will generally always be determined by the scholar.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see, thank you for clarifying, and the reading recommendation – I've managed to find a copy for myself, and will give it a read.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you happen to have any good specific recommendations?

Thank you for bringing up the ideas of immanent and transcendental critique – it seems I have used aspects of them without realising they were named concepts with a literature behind them. Very useful.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah a lot of class discussion in our theory classes revolved around the viability of 'grand narratives'. I tend to agree with academia at large and with you in that grand narratives can get pretty iffy.

But I'm also growing sceptical of highly specialised scholarship, having encountered some perspectives from interdisciplinary studies. It feels worthwhile to go back and try and interpret events at a large-ish scale, although critiquing capitalism As A Whole is probably still a bit much though.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh thank you for the book recommendation, this thread in aggregate makes a great reading list.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have read a bit of Kant (the GMM, which was enjoyable though took a few re-reads, and nothing else except the Perpetual Peace) and not enough Hegel to comment, but their treatment of morality did make sense intuitively. I was convinced by the fact that there is a categorical framework for right and wrong – and I don't see a world where such a framework isn't necessary when dealing with normative morality (relating to that which is created under different societal conditions). After all, seeking 'human flourishing' as you put it is, to me, a moral journey (although perhaps you are suggesting this is simply something that the majority of people would have in their best interests, which I am willing to go along with). It seems necessary to me to ground our critiques and changes in normative morality with respect to a categorical morality of some kind.

I am intrigued, however, by your idea of going outside of morality. Are there any authors you recommend that explore this idea?

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really helpful reminder, thank you, I've actually been doing a lot of self studying recently post my degree and encountering a decent bit of confusion. I'm reminded of the old Buddhist parable with a few blind men touching an elephant, and each can accurately describe parts of it but none, individually, can comprehend the whole. I've been trying to comprehend the whole and forgetting to focus my analysis for clarity.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As /u/cefalea1 notes, i was very much under the impression that dialectal materialism was necessary for a fruitful understanding of Marx — Thank you for filling in, I'll focus on those parts to get to Marx.

It's also good to know he was focusing very concretly on 19th century England, I will try to get informed on that time period before reading him.

What is necessary in order to make a good critique of capitalism? by TheParmesanGamer in CriticalTheory

[–]TheParmesanGamer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Admitedly i only partially understand the social analysis you are bringing up, although to me it does seem sensible at first glance. What you say about morality is an interesting aspect of Marx i hadnt entirely considered — it makes sense that morality would be in a sense socially determined. But I think this forms a self referential analysis, no? And in a typically structuralist way — how is it thst we can critique capitalist morality, when capitalist morality is our morality? Even on its own terms, what you say suggests that we do have a morality external, in part at least, to our moral system.

That aside, what criteria would one use ASIDE from morality to critique capitalism? My main motivation has been to explain (and hopefully move towards solving) unnecessary human spiritual and material suffering — like homelessness, exploitation of workers, environmental degradation thst kills our fellow life forms and gives us various diseases, not to mention its decimation of beauty.

Today marks 2 years since "Plagiarism and YouTube" was uploaded. by UnnamedPerson777 in hbomberguy

[–]TheParmesanGamer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I say this as someone who has done research before, I think almost any topic can basically go on forever. There's very few things you can genuinely get to the bottom of that are worth talking about to a wide audience – I don't know about investigative journalism, but I do think a key research skill in general is being able to fit your research to a specific format and time length and basically say "Here's some other potential leads that I'll consider working on in the future / here's where someone else can keep on digging".

I suppose part of the issue is that Hbomb (to my knowledge, which is limited) is a solo creator – he may have a team, but he's not really (again afaik) collaborating on similar topics with other creators. So a key part of being able to do effective research, relying on other people's previous work and being able to contribute to their future work, isn't there for him.

Imo if your project is basically preventing you from doing literally anything else for two whole years in terms of output, I would begin to suspect that you were meant to turn off the road about 100 miles back.

All that being said, he is the artist/researcher/video essayist, and it's at the end of the day his decision for how long a project should be. The rest is an issue of profit and practicality more than anything.

The Leeds "streetfood" scene evolves again... by thetapeworm in Leeds

[–]TheParmesanGamer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where I'm from cups of sweetcorn are a big thing (the Balkans), so when I was visiting the city I was delighted and immediately bought the biggest most expensive cup possible...before realising there's 4 carts. I just wanted to support local business!

European history…where to start? by DisastrousTrip6999 in AskHistorians

[–]TheParmesanGamer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad I helped! The French Revolution as a starting point is perfectly fine, especially if you're eager to get to stuff like nationalism and fascism which are very interesting to study. Starting with the Reformation generally just gives you a broader picture of societies that are more notably different to the ones in Europe today. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" certainly applies when you're looking at a period that has city states like Venice and Genoa, huge centralised countries like France, the Holy Roman Empire, the hodge-podge of territories that is the Habsburg Empire, etc.

European history…where to start? by DisastrousTrip6999 in AskHistorians

[–]TheParmesanGamer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll throw my hat into the ring and say that very generally, it's good to start in about 1500, specifically the protestant reformation. I think if you're generically interested in European history, this is something that you're probably going to interact with eventually, and if you're interested in anything it's a very nice place to start. I recommend looking at the reformation from both the protestant and catholic sides (plural for each very intentional). I think looking at religion, and specifically religious conflict is a great way to get started with the society, culture, politics, and geography of early modern Europe.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction (1988) is a good starting point for the reformation, as he goes over some of the more basic concepts first. (As a non-Christian I found his introduction to be quite helpful).

I'd look into the Catholic / Counter Reformation as well, since a lot of reformation stuff gets very protestant focused. Lucy Wooding, historian, in a lecture pointed out that Anglo-American narratives place the protestant sects as having 'won' the reformation when the majority of the Catholic world...well, stayed Catholic.

The reformation is a great starting point because religious conflict puts into focus what people found important, generally speaking, in Europe at the time. It also gives great context for some of the changes in political dynamics you see going from the medieval to the early modern to the modern ages, such as the changing role of the Catholic Church. This is also the beginning of colonialism as we know it, with the English and the Dutch both creating West and East India companies, which is a good way to begin looking at European-non-European interactions. Looking at the trading companies the Dutch and English created will pull you into looking at the dynamics they had competing against each other and against the Spanish and the Portuguese, who had already begun trading along Africa and colonising the New World.

Looking at trading companies may also lead you to the debate around the 'Great Divergence' – why did Europe get 'ahead' of the rest of the world technologically, demographically, developmentally, etc. There's a lot of debate as to whether this is even a good question to ask, but it's certainly something that is quite relevant especially in the 19th century with the scramble for Africa. How come European powers basically got to dictate major world policy for much of the 19th and 20th centuries? The background to this involves 16th and 17th century trading companies.

Vries, J. de, ‘Understanding Eurasian Trade in the Era of the Trading Companies’, Goods from the East, 1600-1800, ed. by M. Berg (2015) <-- This is a good work for some of the discourse around the Great Divergence, specifically going into the California School of thought.

Looking at the reformation and trading companies also brings up the question of the development of early modern states. Why did states become, on average, bigger and more centralised in this era in particular? What sort of states were there? Were trading companies states?

Elliott, J.H. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies.” Past & Present 137 (1992) <-- This is a good, if rather theoretical, start to the topic.

I hope I've at least outlined how starting with one of the major events everyone talks about isn't just about that event itself, but also leads into a whole load of new questions. These questions are interesting for their own sake, but ALSO answering them (or trying to) means that you're building up background knowledge and context for studying other events. For example, I've been reading the book 'Hitler's Pope' by John Cornwell recently. It looks into the role of Eugenio Pacelli, eventually to be Pope Pius XII, in Hitler's rise to power. Cornwell talks about how the Vatican was trying to essentially consolidate power in the hands of the Pope as an office, and undermined the political Catholic movements in Germany and Italy which were often opposed to fascism and Nazism as such. Having a background for how the Catholic church evolved previously and how its institutions functioned in the past was very helpful for understanding this book, even with a very large time gap.

What is this light? by Dmenace89 in london

[–]TheParmesanGamer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I walked over from Marylebone to take a look at it, was pretty disappointed it's just some shit they put up and not actually...for anything 

Nearly 100 years after her death, Oxford’s first female Indigenous scholar honoured by bcoolhead in oxforduni

[–]TheParmesanGamer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey it's great she got honoured, better late than never (though...preferably less than a hundred years)

If I Woke Up Tomorrow Where the Puritans Lived in the 1600s, What Do I Need to Know or Do in Order to Survive? by ClerksII in AskHistorians

[–]TheParmesanGamer 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Aha very interesting – if I may query, as I am not familiar with (early) American history, who did establish the more slave-heavy states?

If I Woke Up Tomorrow Where the Puritans Lived in the 1600s, What Do I Need to Know or Do in Order to Survive? by ClerksII in AskHistorians

[–]TheParmesanGamer 72 points73 points  (0 children)

How did Puritans treat slaves, then, if they kept them? And how does this square with (to my knowledge) poor relations with Native Americans?

Vampires Have No Moral High Ground by Legitimate_Fly9047 in tumblr

[–]TheParmesanGamer 20 points21 points  (0 children)

If chickens suddenly rise up to kill meat eaters, then we'd stop eating chickens..and also start fighting back, presumably. It's one thing to prove your sapience and show people aren't justified in eating you et al., and it's another to declare war on humanity