Well, when only non-Romans were involved, it wasn’t a matter for the Roman courts, and things could be decided in whatever local courts and whatever local law code existed.
In terms of going up against a Roman citizen, the work-around was that the non-citizen would, when possible, find a citizen to partner with or to act on his behalf, and then the citizen was free to bring suit.
Well, subjective qualifications and descriptors in my mind do not qualify as data as such, as opposed to core readings testing ancient climates, etc. I am not denigrating history as a serious analytical discipline, but it really is not a science, but an art.
Hmmm, yes, but…: I distinctly recall a mechanism for granting certain privileged non-citizens standing without citizenship.
An ART? Why, just because it is written? Get lost. Anything can be an art! History on the other hand has certain rules of proper research and avoiding bias or fallacies.
Can any science, especially social sciences, truly be free of bias or fallacies?
Yes an art.
What do you have against an art, other than some misplaced hard sciences envy?
Valuation has rules and the like for assessing asset values, involves numbers, yet any good practitioner calls it an art, because of the inherent subjectivity.
The fundamental subjectivity and non quantifiable nature of most of its subject matter make it an art. An analytical art, but an art. And in any subjective evaluation there are always biases and fallacies.
Probably not, but that doesn’t exclusively apply to history. At least we can identify most of the fallacies to make it easier to avoid them.
But, history isn’t supposed to be subjective. Debatable, yes, but only within its specific standards. The more socio-economic fields of history are, by the way, quantifiable (although within limits).
An art would mean anything goes as long as it is someone’s good taste. While a true historical study should not reflect the values of its writer (except perhaps in the choice of subject).
Now that you have split hairs… subjective is debatable, debatable is subjective.
The value of assets tries not to be subjective, merely debatable within specific standards, if you wish to archly play with words.
Same same.
Subjective evaluation of inherently unclear data.
That’s your personal definition of art, based on I suppose the beaux arts. Art as a term does not mean only painting and the like.
What sort art did you have in mind?
And the same problems occur in many disciplines. Archaeology has concrete evidence but needs a huge amount of interpretation before the artefacts mean anything.
All data needs evaluation before it makes sense, because facts alone do not say anything until we combine them in a theory.
And why is the data inherently unclear? It is incomplete and often biased (purpusely or unconsciously), but that doesn’t mean it’s always unclear.
And speaking of definitions, I might just as well say that it all depends on your definiton of science. If sociology is a science, than so is history.
It isn’t. Happy now?
Define “happy”, please?
Oh, and if you would be so kind as to cite.
Art
To cite an American dictionary, as you seem to have a narrow view of the meaning of art, from your Merriam Webster:
Meanings (1), (2) and (3) all in whole or part cover the meaning, whereas you are restricting your understanding of the word to (4) (fine arts, beaux arts).
As such, in business we do not speak of the “science” - at least good businessmen do not - of valuing an acquisition, but the art; the pure numbers part is science, but the subjective evaluation of numbers (and projections) is an art. Calling fundamentally subjective evaluation science gives one a very false sense of the analysis one does.
So, again, I dismiss hard science penis envy.
Sociology? Perhaps, some sociology is science, much is not in my view. It might one day become a science with better data and science around human behaviour and interactions with environment.
Obviously a subjective evaluation.
In any case, this hijack should doubtless be taken to a new GD thread as we are far off the actual GQ question.
If you’re going to bring dictionaries into it, then at least use Dr. Johnson’s (British) dictionary. I asked for an example, not an explanation. Only number 2 seems to cover academic “arts”.
It would have been better if you had looked up ‘science’. For example, in my definition, if it has footnotes, it is science (with the exception of Terry Pratchett). Most dictionaries give a broad definition of science that would include the humanities.
Hard science penis envy? By jove you’re taking this topic serious. Lighten up. I might as well say that you’re out to discredit the humanities. If you’re speaking from the physics or ‘hard’ world of science, yes, the study of history is nothing alike. I was just curious what arguments people were going to use to prove to me that it isn’t.
This is enough of a hijack. I note merely that the citation to the American dictionary was to illustrate the meaning of Art in the sense I have been using it.
By the way, and without subtext, why did you highlight the word “American” when you quoted the dictionary’s entry for art?