The esteemed Zenpundit and I have begun a discussion on comparative methodologies for historians and futurists that looks promising. See Mark’s original post and my comment that sparked his detailed reply which I then analyzed.

Please join the conversation over at Zenpundit. There are many CA community members that have a better grasp on this stuff than I. I would especially like to hear Adam’s take.

ADDENDUM: Since Mark’s comments field ate my HTML I will post my comment below the fold, where it might be a little more easier to digest.

[originally posted here]

Zenpundit,

Great post. First off I would like to qualify my original comment and emphasize that I did notice your use of the term “complementary.” I wasn’t challenging your conclusions but was trying to draw a distinction between your wish of how things should be (one that I share, I might add) and how things actually are (at least with respect to my personal experience.)

I share the sense that the methodologies are complementary. What my comment called for was an analytical comparison of the various methodologies to establish if any actual functional compatibility exists. I went through your post and pulled out some methodological keywords that you use to describe futurism and history. I separated them further into two categories: quantitative and qualitative. This may be considered “heuristic bias,” but I would like to use this dichotomy as I think it is the faultline between historians and social scientists.

Futurism

Quantitative
computer modeling
prediction markets
mathematics
extrapolation*

Qualitative
decision trees
scenario-building
extrapolation*

Historical

Quantitative
nil

Qualitative
causal explanation
context
primary/secondary material
“discrete facts”

A brief glance shows a gap in the qualitative quantitative area reflected in your comment that “History is a craft, not a science.” However, futurism is also about the “craft” of qualitative analysis as well, so the two are not necessary diametric. One common aspect of both fields is the philosophic, specifically the epistimelogical consequences (once again I would like to do a double-take at the term “discrete facts”) and the eternal quest to pare down bias. This is an area that I think could be explored more. If you know any good journal articles about this let me know.

Moving on, I would like to challenge one of your statements: “The problem with futurists is that their predictions are all too frequently in error.”

Error denotes precision. Futurists are in the forecasting business not the prediction business. If a futurist constructs a number of variant scenarios, none of which exactly fit the present conditions, but are able to be used to inform decision-making, where is the error? The fact that the scenarios could be drawn upon for guidance makes the futurist a success. Qualifying uncertainty is a key aspect of forecasting, one that is often overlooked by the public. Hey, we all can’t be fans of Sherman Kent.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « War or Adaptation
• » German NSC Sparks Controversy