Metamethodology and Historiography: Towards a Consistent Empirical Genetic World View

Hayo  Siemsen

doi:10.4236/ahs.2015.42010

Hayo Siemsen^1,2,3

Abstract: Are there many methodologies and many historiographies, or is there in principle just one science? Basically, there are only two sources of knowledge: empirical (sensual) experience and metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately, the two are often difficult to distinguish, especially because all methodologies and historiographies make a different “frame” of assumptions, basic concepts with different empirical meanings, relations, etc. How can all this be reconciled? The following article will argue that the confusion has indeed very old roots, but that as soon as those roots are laid open, it is possible to use an alternative “metamethodology”, a worldview, which allows identifying arbitrary a priori assumptions and form a common basis for consistently combining different methods. As a result, the methods cannot only check and reduce the systematic errors necessarily included in each method by itself, but combine methods in a meaningful way in order to tackle scientific questions, which would be too speculative to pursue from the perspective of just one method. Applying an empirical genetic metamethodology additionally improves learning and applying science severalfold in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.

Keywords: Empirical Genesis, Ernst Mach, Metamethodology, Historiography, Gestalt, Sensualism

Cite this paper: Siemsen, H. , (2015) Metamethodology and Historiography: Towards a Consistent Empirical Genetic World View. Advances in Historical Studies, 4, 97-105. doi: 10.4236/ahs.2015.42010.

References

[1] Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200/2014). On the Soul. Part 1: Soul as Form of the Body, Parts of the Soul, Nourishment and Perception. By V. Caston (Ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

[2] Beneke, F. E. (1842). System der Logik als Kunstlehre des Denkens. Berlin: Dümmler.

[3] Broadie, A. (1985). The Circle of John Mair. Logic and Logicians in Pre-Reformation Scotland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[4] Einstein, A. (1916). Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 17/7, 1st of April: 101-104.

[5] Geertz, C. (1972). Deep Play. Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. Daedalus 101/1: 1-37.

[6] Gimbutas, M. (1992). Die Ethnogenese der europäischen Indogermanen. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwis- senschaft. Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 54.

[7] Haarmann, H. (2011). Das Rätsel der Donauzivilisation. Die Entdeckung der ältesten Hochkultur Europas. München: Beck.

[8] Hadamard, J. (1945/1954). The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. New York: Dover.

[9] Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.

[10] Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers. Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge.

[11] Hotson, H. (2007). Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications 1543-1630. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12] Kessler, E. (2011). Alexander of Aphrodisias and His Doctrine of the Soul. 1400 Years of Lasting Significance. Early Science and Medicine, 16, 1-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004210196

[13] Koselleck, R. (2003). Zeitschichten: Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

[14] Luchins, A. S. (1975). The Place of Gestalt Theory in American Psychology. In S. Ertel, L. Kemmler, & M. Stadler (Eds.), Gestalttheorie in der Modernen Psychologie (pp. 21-44). Darmstadt: Steinkopff.

[15] Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of Behavior: A Variational Approach to the Effect of Einstellung. Eugene, Oregon, OR: University of Oregon.

[16] Mach, E. (1905/1926/2002). Erkenntnis und Irrtum: Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung (5th ed.). Leipzig, Berlin: reprint by rePRINT.

[17] Mach, E. (1905/1976). Knowledge and Error. Dordrecht: Reidel.

[18] Mach, E. (1909). Erinnerungen an Darwin und die Entwicklungslehre. Anlässlich der Feier von Darwins hundertstem Geburtstage. Neue Freie Presse, 27 June 1909, 2.

[19] Moleschott, J. (1852). Der Kreislauf des Lebens. Physiologische Antworten auf Liebig‘s Chemische Briefe. Mainz: Victor von Zabern.

[20] Muir, E. (2007). The Culture Wars of the Late Renaissance: Skeptics, Libertines, and Opera. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[21] Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286-302.

[22] Siemsen, H. (2009). Conceptual Adaptation: Bridging Spatial and Temporal Relations by Cognitive Wormholes. In M. Albert et al. (Eds.), Transnational Political Spaces. Agents—Structures—Encounters. Frankfurt (M.): Campus.

[23] Siemsen, H. (2010a). Alfred Binet and Ernst Mach: Similarities, Differences and Influences. University of Nancy, Revue Recherches & éducations, 3, 351-403.

[24] Siemsen, H. (2010b). The Mach-Planck Debate Revisited: Democratization of Science or Elite Knowledge? Public Understanding of Science, 19, 293-310.

[25] Siemsen, H. (2014). Ernst Mach: A Genetic Introduction to His Educational Theory and Pedagogy. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Vol. III, pp. 2329-2358). Frankfurt (M.): Springer.

[26] Siemsen, H. (2015). The Transformation of Mind. Working Paper.

[27] Siemsen, K. H. (2013). Learning by Gestalt. Gestalt Theory, 35, 155-168.

[28] Thiele, J. (1978). Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation: Die Korrespondenz Ernst Machs. Kastellaun: Henn.

[29] Vaney, V. (1911). Les classes pour arriérés. Recruitement, organisation, exercises d’orthopédie mentale. Bulletin de la Société libre pour l’Etude psychologique de l’Enfant, 73, 293-300.

[30] Wertheimer, M. (1924/1938). Gestalt Theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology (pp. 1-11). London: Kegan, Trench, Trubner.