What my colleagues and I do is Cliodynamics, which is very different from typical cyclical views of history. “Cyclical history” suffers from two problems. First, mechanisms producing cycles are either entirely missing, or inadequately specified. There is almost never an explicit mathematical model that would clarify these mechanisms. Second, cyclical theories in history are not subjected to empirical tests with independently gathered data. It’s all retrospective eyeballing together with “Procrustean” forcing of the historical record to fit the postulated cycle by stretching in some places and cutting off a bit here and there. For a specific critique, looking at the Strauss-Howe cyclical theory, see my post The Prophecy of the Fourth Turning.
Cliodynamica — A Blog about the Evolution of Civilizations
Peter Turchin | professor at the University of Connecticut in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Mathematics, and the vice president of the Evolution Institute.
See also
Ptolemynanics is not "Epiyclical History" - Peter Pan
ReplyDelete