[ih] Historiography vs history [was: Re: Internet-history Digest, Vol 62, Issue 32]

[Miles Fidelman]

How is it that this is the first I've heard of sigcis?!

Miles

Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> John,
>
> There's a clear contrast between what most techies think of as "history"
> and the historiographical approach where technical details are 
> subordinate
> to the human, societal and economic context. You're spot on to mention
> Thomas Haigh in that context. Most of what is discussed on this list
> is at the "technical details" end of the spectrum. It's like discussing
> the details of the condensers of early steam engines, not the impact
> of steam power on the Industrial Revolution. It's a different skill set.
>
> If we wanted this list to be more than a repository for factoids,
> we'd need some real historians here. They mainly live at 
> members at sigcis.org
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 01-Feb-25 14:38, John Shoch via Internet-history wrote:
>> Noel,
>>
>> Your concern about the technical content of computer history puts you in
>> good company -- with Don Knuth.
>>
>> --In 2021 the CACM published a transcript of a talk Don had given 7 
>> years
>> before: "Let’s Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science." From the
>> CACM's introduction:
>> "On May 7, 2014, Don Knuth delivered that year's Kailath Lecture at
>> Stanford University to a packed auditorium. In it he decried the 
>> absence of
>> technical content from the histories of computer science being 
>> written, and
>> he made an impassioned plea for historians of computer science to get 
>> back
>> on track, as the historians of mathematics have always been."
>>
>> https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/lets-not-dumb-down-the-history-of-computer-science/ 
>>
>>
>> --I had the good fortune to be at that lecture 10 years ago, which is
>> available on Youtube:
>>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXdDEQveKw
>>       [There is an amusing introduction by John Hennesey.]
>>
>> --A year after the talk, in 2015, the CACM ran a response from Thomas
>> Haigh, arguing the other side:
>> "In this column I will be looking at the changing relationship 
>> between the
>> discipline of computer science and the growing body of scholarly work on
>> the history of computing, beginning with a recent plea made by renowned
>> computer scientist Donald Knuth." ...
>> "Computing is much bigger than computer science, and so the history of
>> computing is much bigger than the history of computer science. Yet Knuth
>> treated Campbell-Kelly’s book on the business history of the software
>> industry (accurately subtitled “a history of the software industry”) and
>> all the rest of the history of computing as part of “the history of
>> computer science.” ...
>> "To call such work “dumbed down” history of computer science, rather 
>> than
>> smart history of many other things, is to misunderstand both the 
>> intentions
>> and the accomplishments of its authors."
>>       https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/the-tears-of-donald-knuth/
>>
>> I commend both articles to you.
>>
>> John
>>
>> PS:  Personally, I tend to come down on the Haigh side of the 
>> discussion.
>> "History" can take many forms when looking at any subject area -- 
>> political
>> history, economic history, business history, social history, technical
>> history, architectural history, etc.
>> An example:  some of you may know that Robert Garner is undertaking a
>> prodigious effort to dig into the technical evolution of the Ethernet 
>> (he's
>> looking at original board designs, simulation equations, timing issues,
>> etc.  Yet that still leaves room for different historical work on the
>> techno/political battles of the standardization process (Ethernet vs. 
>> token
>> ring, Xerox/Dec/Intel vs. IBM, IEEE vs. ECMA in Europe, etc.). I 
>> think we
>> need both.
>> [Full disclosure:  I served for about two decades on the Board of the
>> Computer History Museum, which informed my broader view of the
>> opportunity.  The technical history of computing (and networking) is
>> important, but will probably serve a narrower audience.]


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown