> It's not about how to use history as an aid to prediction.
Because this isnt the goal of history. You cant use history to predict the future.
> If you want to understand Cicero's era, for example, read [1]. This is a study of Cicero by an experienced and cynical newspaper political reporter. The author writes that too many historians take Cicero's speeches at face value. The author knows better, having heard many politicians of his own day.
No they dont. This is yet another example of an outsider looking at another field, thinking he knows better and making a fool of himself. Also, why would you ignore 80 years of scholarship about Cicero and read a book from 1942???
If I show you a picture of a cup from 100 ms ago and it's in midair probability favors that the cup will be on it's way to the ground to its demise. Statistically this will be true.
History is filled with analogous times where by watching the present you can make predictions far better than flipping a coin.
Because this isnt the goal of history. You cant use history to predict the future.
> If you want to understand Cicero's era, for example, read [1]. This is a study of Cicero by an experienced and cynical newspaper political reporter. The author writes that too many historians take Cicero's speeches at face value. The author knows better, having heard many politicians of his own day.
No they dont. This is yet another example of an outsider looking at another field, thinking he knows better and making a fool of himself. Also, why would you ignore 80 years of scholarship about Cicero and read a book from 1942???