Historian vs. Futurist: Antithesis and Synthesis
ubiwar points to an excellent post at The Long Now summarizing a debate-discussion between historian Niall Ferguson and futurist Peter Schwartz:
….Ferguson ended with a critique of Schwartz’s book on scenario planning, THE ART OF THE LONG VIEW, which he thought showed signs of “heuristic bias.” When Schwartz asked Ferguson to expand on that idea, Ferguson pointed out there was a whole chapter in the book about “The Global Teenager,” which seemed spurious. It merely reflected Schwartz’s personal experience: “You were a teenager when teenagers mattered. “
Historians also have heuristic biases, Ferguson added, such as their expectation that “great events should have great causes.” Historians have much to learn from complexity theory and evolution, he said. His own work with “counter-factual history” helps expose critical moments in history and provides a way to “think about what didn’t happen.” The counter-factual technique is an application of scenario thinking to the past.
In Schwartz’s opening remarks, he said that his plans to write a book titled THE CASE FOR OPTIMISM were derailed by reading Ferguson’s WAR OF THE WORLD. He’s been grappling with the issues Ferguson raised for 18 months. “You do alternative pasts, I do alternative futures. Where historians commune with the dead, futurists have imaginary friends.”
Historians and futurists use complementary methodologies that can enrich and inspire each other’s work.
Historians, accustomed to analytical searches for causation, are excellent at vetting the plausibility of imagineered, hypothetical scenarios and can inform through historical analogies. Futurists, in turn, are analytically attuned to alternatives and points of divergence and can help unearth what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls “silent evidence” lurking in the often excessively linear and simplified causation explanations of historical narratives.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 am
"Historians and futurists use complementary methodologies …"In my experience futurists and historians are at one another’s throats over methodology. I would like to compare these methodologies in more detail. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 am
I’m with ya, Mr. Z on this one, yet: I’ve read a bit of Taleb, and I want to understand how ‘silent evidence’ lurks in the future. Dude, illuminate.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’ve always been a fan of scenario-building, particularly past counter-factuals.
.
I’ve always been suspicious of people who use the word "heuristic." I always have a hard time figuring out what they mean, and I suspect that they don’t know, either.
.
Thanks for giving me something to think about other than the campaign, the war, the financial collapses…
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
hi YH, ubiwar,
.
Sure, sure, call me on my breezy, lunch hour linked post. 😉 Challenge accepted – though it will have to wait until my tiny soccer players are fed, bathed, chores completed and geberally occupied with something productive enough for their father to write a post on comparative methodology.
.
Hi Cheryl,
.
It does seem to be used like a conversational "magic cloud" phrase. Glad you like the link though.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:52 am
[…] https://zenpundit.com/?p=2701 Historians, accustomed to analytical searches for causation, are excellent at vetting the plausibility of imagineered, hypothetical scenarios and can inform through historical analogies. Futurists, in turn, are analytically attuned to alternatives and points of divergence and can help unearth what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls “silent evidence” lurking in the often excessively linear and simplified causation explanations of historical narratives. […]
May 13th, 2008 at 12:48 am
[…] by ubiwar on 13 May 2008 After my recent post, Zenpundit’s subsequent comments and his discussion with Younghusband on the issue, the .mp3 of the Long Now Foundation debate […]