Hi Enrique,
Great questions, that raise still others...
EnriqueEnriquez wrote:
Is there a difference between seeking to understand something and seeking to proof something? Which one are we pursuing?
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but I'll just react to my impression of the proposed difference between understanding and proof - in HISTORY.
It's not often, maybe it's not even possible, to prove something in history like you can in physical science. All you can do is offer
proofs, which for historians just means
evidence, for the scenario one is proposing.
(edited to add: I suppose that "scenario" IS the historian's "understanding")
Proofs are offered to bolster an argument. The evidence exists, but whether it is used in an argument or not determines if it is a
proof for this or that argument.
Usually it's not very hard, at least for more recent times, since whatever evidence there is, or proofs there are, tell the story pretty clearly. In the case of tarot history, all of the earliest evidence for tarot is in northern Italy, it starts in 1442 and grows outward from then. There is an abundance of it. Other later and foreign sources point to Italy as the origin of tarot.
So a very basic argument would be "Tarot was invented in Italy before 1442". The proofs offered in support of this argument are the evidence. Since nothing contradicts it, and none of the few dozen experts who've contributed to the study disagree, there is no reason to think anything other than that it is a "proven" argument.
BUT - that is only the beginning of how to
understand the invention. I presume by "understand" you mean "the meaning" of Tarot. To get to this, we need to know the facts, so we can work out towards the unknown "whys".
How do we move forward?
By following up on the leads of what is known, to what is unknown. It may lead to a discovery of hitherto unknown evidence, or it may be a new theoretical perspective that just rearranges what is known, and that in turn leads to more discoveries (like the Copernican model that changed astronomy... well, everything).
Our understanding grows as we put it into a meaningful relationship with the time and place of its origin (or whenever we are looking at it), even if we don't have an explicit understanding. In other words, the search for context is never futile, it is always enriching (because understanding in history depends upon things like wisdom and insight).
What makes a hunch worth pursuing?
I think any hunch is worth pursuing, but there is a learning curve involved. As you get more specialized and expert, your hunches will get more precisely testable. You quickly learn what will be a waste of time, and what might be a promising avenue.
I guess the point is that you have to make your hunches testable, and you have to be willing to go as far as necessary to test them.
What needs to happen for us to know that the time for dropping a hunch as come?
I would say that if all your conceptual models for the hunch to be valid fail - the evidence that should be there fails to show up, even in attenuated or indirect form - then it is time to give up.
Usually this takes a few minutes of thinking or just looking up a few references, but sometimes it takes excursions to the library, discussion with experts, and long and deep thought on the problem.
Some hunches don't leave after years of study, but you must always be open to the opportunity (if ever possible) of testing them. Everybody has these long-held hunches, unproven ideas - that is what gives scholarship its color.
When is it really justified to go beyond the simpler explanations? Why?
I think Michael answered this beautifully. I also think that different theories, based on the same evidence, begin to propose different questions that then require sometimes different explanations - often equally simple, but answering the different theoretical perspective that has arisen.
Why is it justified to go beyond simpler explanations? When those explanations are not really as simple or sufficiently explanatory as they appear - i.e. they raise too many other questions. Also, of course, when new evidence appears that can't be explained without another model/explanation.
How many times is worthy to go back and revisit those things on which there is some consensus? Why?
I think it's worth it to revisit the consensus constantly, if just to make sure your memory for the facts isn't failing.
From a pedagogical perspective, it is worth it to continually repeat the most basic facts and consensus opinions everywhere and every time you can - just like a teacher does with every new class - just so that those facts sink into and mould new minds. The teacher learns the best way to present the maximum of information in the most streamlined and profound way possible, and students who pay attention actually
advance because they have a firm foundation upon which to build when they come to ask really new questions.
Ross
