萨勒·沙利文（Saller Sullivan）（1906~1995），德裔美籍科学史专家，犹太人。1906年萨勒·沙利文出生于德国巴伐利亚州首府慕尼黑，1932年举家迁往美国，50年代后期起定居于德州小镇奥斯町，专心于学术研究。1979年萨勒·沙利文写成论文scientization historical （《科学的历史学》）。1995年于家中去世。
论文价值
1982年我去East Texas Baptist University（东德克萨斯州浸会大学）讲学时他曾赠我一篇，后失去联系。当时计量历史学在全世界范围内早已居于统治地位，在中国则风头正劲。而他在文中竟然预言计量史学的统治必不长久，故我当时因不以为然而很不在意。现在想来，他是对的。30年的史学实践也证明计量史学果然无法坚定地走下去。尤为难得的是，他在批评计量史学之余，竟能结合平生所学，提出一种解决方案，至今似乎未见有相似思想存世。2010年10月7日我整理旧书架时，偶然发现躺在旧文件夹中的这篇论文，震惊之余，有感其思想深超前之际，对国内至今无一译文而深感遗憾。我决定将此文进行翻译。此文语言颇为难译，英语晦涩且德语夹杂其间，我便决定将原文与译文渐次登出，以防因译者水平有限而误译。老先生今年或已作古，同格雷戈尔·孟德尔一样，据我所知他仅有这一篇论文传世，悲夫！
2010年11月20日凌晨3时25分（美国中部时间19日下午2时25分），我收到东德克萨斯州浸会大学化学史分部主任迈耶先生的电子回信，全文如下：
Dear, mann. The wise man you asked in your letters has died in 15 years ago. As you've thought, until the last two years, the study of Sullivan has to get more widespread concern. We plan to open a conference next year on March 5, namely Sullivan birthday 105 anniversary of launching an aiming his seminar, it is the first, I hope you will to join.
亲爱的曼（我的英文名字），您在信中所询问的那位先生已于15年前去世，如您所虑，直到最近两年，有关哈里·沙利文的研究才得到较普遍的关注。我们计划于明年的3月5日，也就是沙利文诞辰105周年之际开展一次针对他的研讨会，这是首次的，希望您届时参加。
论文正文
In Western Europe many schools of new historiography, measurement history school of the research methods and the difference of Chinese traditional abaut historiography largest. Most historians also said to have great expectations, hope metrological historiography through to its completion of history science. However, since the 1970s, measurement historiography has been unprecedented widely questioned. The third tkme generation of French yearbook school representatives le hu watts radu, once in 1964 proposed history can't justify unless program quantitative science. I predict, he in the early 80s but will think from 1950 to 1970 crazy implementation of qualitative research and information technology is a kind of bias, if he arrives had still been alive. There was founded in 1955 "new economic history" schools (cliometrics one of the most important branches) the rochester university professor fu geer, in less than a decade must also talk about history of the limits of the econometric methods. Measuring historians will be so has changed diagram, visible measurement historiography shortly to be in serious crisis. Why have been many historians praise highly the veil measurement CSEAHST in such serious crisis? This is measuring history research object, and study method of defects.
在西欧新历史学的众多学派中，计量历史学派的研究方法与传统史学的差别最大。大多数历史学家也曾对计量史学寄予厚望，希望通过它来完成历史的科学化。然而自70年代以来，计量史学却遭到了空前广泛的质疑。第三代法国年鉴学派的代表勒胡瓦拉杜里，曾于1964年提出历史学除非计量化便不能成其为科学。我预言，他在80年代初却必会认为1950～1970年间疯狂的推行计量研究和信息技术是一种偏向，如果他到时还健在的话。还有1955年创立“新经济史”学派（计量历史学最重要的一个分支）的那位罗彻斯特大学教授福格尔，不出十年也必定大谈历史学中计量方法的限度。计量史学家们必会如此翻然改图，可见计量史学不久即将陷入严重的危机之中。为什么曾被众多历史学家推崇备至的计量史学会陷入如此严重的危机之中？这是计量史学研究对象和研究方法上的缺陷造成的。
First, measuring historiography USES is for specific things statistical processing method. The specific historical things often is composed of tens of thousands of components, But 统计学 is a formula is extremely complex science, and often incidental to a lot of charts. Complex cause dull and difficult difficult to learn. On the one hand, the general reader prohibitive, already weakened history's social 函数s and lower social study of history of investment of passion. On the other hand, not only make the author himself in the historical world -the companion, with the deepening of research and complexity, also caused the difficult to continue research on the plight.
首先，计量历史学采用的是对具体事物的统计学处理方法。具体的历史事物往往是由成千上万个因素组成；而统计学是一种公式极为复杂的科学，且往往附带大量的图表。复杂造成枯燥无味和难懂难学。一方面，广大读者望而却步，既削弱了历史学的社会职能又降低了社会对历史研究的投资的热情；另一方面，不仅使作者自己在历史界难觅知音，随着研究的深入和复杂度的提高，还造成了难以继续研究下去的困境。
Second, single from measuring historiographical specific things this hand, because of the specific things, there are large size factors confounding factors, so full contingency during like modern science that suits the electronic 计算机 history model difficult to build. Meanwhile, specific things the complexity and contingency and get the formula can't logically the proof of its correctness.
第二，单从计量历史学研究具体事物这一方面看，由于具体事物中大小因素混杂，有大量偶然性因素充斥其间，所以像现代理科那样适合电子计算机的历史模型难以建立。同时，具体事物的复杂性和偶然性又使得到的公式无法在逻辑上证明其自身的正确性。
Third, from single use statistical methods measuring historiography this aspect see, used statistical research methods must possess a large amount of 数据 materials. This makes the research scope of measuring historiography far narrow scope of traditional historiography. Because there 面积 lot of specific things cannot be recorded data, so measurement historiography often only studying railway mileage, grain price and so on economic issues, but no way to measure the meaning and the value, cultural and ideological concepts and so on. While many historical material itself authenticity resembles, nobody can guarantee the micro 数据 not tamper with the composition, 'GIGO effect "(input waste, an Example is output waste). For no material is used when "estimation method" is completely against the history at least criterion. Therefore, if you want to solve the crisis, measuring historiography of specific things will have to give up the research, we must give up statistical method of study.
第三，单从计量历史学使用统计学的方法这一方面看，使用统计学的研究方法必须占有大量的数据材料。这使得计量史学的研究范围远远窄于传统史学的研究范围。由于具体事物中有很多无法记载的数据，所以计量史学往往只能研究铁路里程、粮食价格等等经济问题，却无法计量意义、价值、文化、思想观念等等问题。而很多历史资料本身真伪难辨，谁也不能保证那些微观资料中没有篡改成分，‘GIGO效应’（输入废物，输出废物）便是一例。而对于没有资料时使用的“估算”方法，则完全违背了历史学最起码的准则。由此可见，要想解决计量史学的危机，就必须放弃对具体事物的研究，就必须放弃统计学的研究方法。
Physical socialist historiography has made people once thought that history may record this complete scientific, the Columbia University professor Chris KAMAN for physics history masterpiece - the historiography of 社会主义 has the library science and history "write preface, praised the book is:" published on world history is the most important book ". He also said: "although there are many writers in the past in different extent, applied science method research history, such as jarvik, Hegel, Marx, the guest voronezh-vorosilograd, but library dr jose mourinho was the first to pose an scientific methods and formulas can be fruitful applied in history, and in practice first application scientific hypothesis analysis since ancient 时间 world history". However after less than half a century today, physical socialist historiography has already disappeared, far from complete what they flaunt weiYE
物理主义历史学也曾使人们一度认为历史可以籍此完成科学化，哥伦比亚大学的史学教授卡曼在为物理主义史学的代表作——库尼奥的《科学和历史》写的前言中，称赞此书是已出版的关于世界史的最重要的书。他还说：“尽管过去有很多作家在不同程度上应用科学方法研究历史，如维科、格奥尔格·威廉·弗里德里希·黑格尔、卡尔·马克思、斯宾格勒，但库尼奥博士是第一个提出科学方法和公式可以富有成果的应用于历史学，并在实践上第一个应用科学假设来分析自古至今世界史的人”。然而时隔不到半个世纪的今天，物理主义历史学却早已销声匿迹，远未完成他们所标榜的伟业。
In early era dilthey, historians have qualification and proof historiography and physics research object has a very different nature, so the laws of physics directly applied in history and require two kind of different object completely obey only the same law clearly is not scientific and visible copy copy of the natural science theory or rule is physical socialist historiography failure. With library mourinho's social 摩尔cular 能量 say for Example, its failure 理性 just depends on his historical figures of energy (essentially a person's comprehensive ability) and physics of energy (material work ability) In Essence completely different, certainly can't keep the same law (such as people's ability does not obey the law of conservation of 能量). Not only that, he also wants "in practice... applied science hypothesis analysis since ancient 时间 of world history", is still in specific historical problems as its scientific object. This case in physical socialist historiography has strong representative. The argument is also reveals the like cybernetics history, history and historiography of information system of this kind of direct references to other subject specific theorem law rather than the western scientific research thought reason for failure of schools of historiography.
早在威廉·狄尔泰的时代，历史学家们就已认定并证明历史学与物理学的研究对象有本质的不同，因此把物理学规律直接的应用于历史学并要求两种性质不同的客体完全只服从同一规律显然是不科学的，可见照抄照搬自然科学的理论或规律正是物理主义史学失败的原因。以库尼奥的社会分子能量说 为例，其失败原因恰恰在于他所研究的历史人物的能量（实质上是一个人的综合能力）与物理学中的能量（物质做功的能力）在本质上完全不同，当然不能遵守同一规律（例如人的能力并不遵守能量守恒定律）。不仅如此，他还希望“在实践上……应用科学假设来分析自古至今的世界史”，仍是在以具体的历史问题作为其科学化的对象。此例在物理主义历史学中具有很强的代表性。上段论述也同样说明了像控制论史学、系统论史学和信息论史学这类直接引用其他学科具体的定理定律而非研究思想的西方科学化史学流派的失败原因。
European scientific historiography all genres in complex specific historical problems as its scientific object. In the research results on expression is the genre has scientific history research a specific formula could be rid of a specific target. But because of contingency and secondary factors, reality is unable to use 混凝土 problems to solve the 数学 directly, so to build a pure realistic problems of the mathematics models of efforts fail. This 小数点 in the mathematical historiography particularly, also the main 理性 of failure, although mathematical history also exist used statistical methods to evil. Elah jehiel greaves base as an example, he studied civilization development is more than a factor of realistic problem. He thinks "a 计数ry or region's unit 面积 of river channel length and the longer length, the coastline is the development of civilization and faster, civilization degree is higher. On this basis, he first according to a state or national average urban 种群 and river channel length, coastlines length and population 密度 of the relationship between variables in without proof (can't prove) put forward a contains 10 unknown abnormalities of the complex multivariate 函数 方程, and then consider people's behavior patterns and communications media relationship and family environment effect, which added to many complicated factors (such as the NewIdeas to the brain center stimulation, children have the innate ability to accept new things and so on) the participation, finally draw one contained seven uncertain complex formula. Compared with measuring historiography, mathematical historiography formula not only is more complex, and more useless.
西方科学化历史学流派无不以复杂的具体历史问题作为其科学化的对象。这在研究成果上表现为西方科学化史学诸流派都有研究出一个具体公式就能解决掉一个具体问题的目标。但是由于大量偶然性和次要因素的存在，现实的具体问题是无法用数学来直接解决的，因此妄图建立一个纯现实问题的数学模型的努力必然会失败。这一点在数理史学上表现得尤为明显，也是它失败的最主要的原因，虽然数理史学也存在着使用统计学方法的弊病。以拉歇夫斯基为例，他研究的文明发展问题是一个多因素的现实问题。他认为一个国家或地区的单位面积的河道长度和海岸线长度越长，则文明的发展就越快，文明程度就越高。在此基础上，他先根据一个国家或民族平均城市人口数量与河道长度、海岸线长度及人口密度的变量之间的关系在未经证明（也无法证明）的情况下提出一个含有10个未知数的异常复杂的多元函数关系式，再考虑人的行为模式与通讯媒介之间的关系和家庭环境的作用，其中又加很多复杂因素（如新思想对大脑中心的刺激、孩子具有的天生接受新事物的能力等等）的参与，最后得出一个含有七个未知数的复杂公式。较之计量历史学，数理史学的公式不仅更为复杂，而且更为无用。
To sum up, the European scientific historiography not capped historical scientific goal, Europe therefore scientific history is a history of failure, and used statistical scientific research approaches, with specific historical issues as scientific objects and copy copy ready-made natural science law is the western scientific historiography genre of the three main reasons for failure, in which specific historical issues as scientific object is their common reasons for failure. Thus, want to jump out of the western scientific historiography limit, to accomplish history of scientific, we must give up on the specific historical problem of direct research, we must give up 统计学 research method and in natural science of dogmatism of reference way.
综上所述，欧洲科学化历史学根本没有完成历史科学化的目标，因此欧洲科学化史学是一种失败的科学化史学，而使用统计学的研究方法、以具体历史问题作为科学化的对象和照抄照搬现成的自然科学规律是西方科学化史学流派失败的三大主要原因，其中以具体历史问题作为科学化的对象则是他们失败的共同原因。由此可见，要想跳出西方科学化史学的局限，要想完成历史学的科学化，就必须放弃对具体历史问题的直接研究，就必须放弃统计学的研究方法和对自然科学的教条主义的借鉴方式。
Investigation of physics (early age 16 ~ 17 century) can be found, then physics is in by philosophical analysis of mathematical program to quantitative change in, but in the conversion process in classical physics (at that 时间 of new physics) are not only not appear modern 计量学 historiography of crisis, but also replace the old physics various schools, opens the 400 years of physics.
考察初创时代的物理学（16～17世纪）可以发现，当时物理学正处于由哲学分析化向数学计量化的转变之中，但在转化过程中经典物理学（当时的新物理学）非但没有出现现代计量历史学的危机，而且还取代了以前的物理学各流派，开启了400年来的物理学大发展。
So, what should we learn to that wfgcbe? Is the laws of physics? Of course not. This is because the study of physics object and historical research object has a very different nature, the neo-kantian on behalf of dilthey put 前锋 "history to people's spiritual life as the research object, and the nature of scientific research is external, inanimate nature world." Therefore copy laws of physics used to solve the problem is not scientific history. This also is physical socialist failure. Such as library mourinho DE molecular 能量 society said, he said the energy (a person's comprehensive ability) and physics of energy (material work ability) In Essence completely different, certainly can't keep the same law (such as people's ability does not obey the law of conservation of 能量).
那么，我们应该从中借鉴些什么呢？是物理学规律吗？当然不是。这是因为物理学的研究对象和历史学的研究对象有本质的不同，新康德主义的代表之一威廉·狄尔泰提出“历史学以人的精神生命为研究对象，而自然科学研究的是外在的、无生命的自然世界。”因此照搬物理学规律用来解决历史学的问题是不科学的。这也就是物理主义失败的原因。比如库尼奥德分子能量社会说，他所说的能量（一个人的综合能力）与物理学中的能量（物质做功的能力）在本质上完全不同，当然不能遵守同一规律(例如人的能力并不遵守能量守恒定律)。
Dilthey in a successful discusses physics research object and historical research object has a very different nature after, put 前锋 one's own conclusions: "natural science research method and the basic problem cannot be solved history, cannot serve as history method, and history should have its unique methodology. " here, he made a very simple logic errors: rule is not 相等 to obtain regular method. For a simple Example, suppose table put above have a piece of iron and an apple (on behalf of an entirely different character of history and physics research object and law), not because they are different nature, think obtain their method is different (common sense is can use walk over to pick up the methods of obtaining). Therefore, the study of physics object and historical research object is essentially different, it only proves that physics and history used different, but can prove law both research methods (get regular method) different.
威廉·狄尔泰在成功的论述了物理学的研究对象和历史学的研究对象有本质的不同之后，提出自己的结论：自然科学的研究方法并不能解决历史学的基本问题，不能作为历史学的方法，历史学应该有其独特的方法论。在这里，他犯了一个很浅显的逻辑错误：规律不等于获得规律的方法。举一个简单的例子，假设桌子上面放有一块铁和一个苹果（代表性质完全不同的历史学和物理学的研究对象和规律），不能因为它们性质不同，就认为获得它们的方法就不同（常识是都可以用走过去拿起来的方法获得）。所以，物理学的研究对象和历史学的研究对象有本质的不同，只能证明物理学和历史学所用的规律不同，但不能证明两者的研究方法（获得规律的方法）不同。
Modern natural science and social science in research method is essentially different: natural science adopts the specific things the idealistic model research methods, the result of expression is universallyapplicable theorem laws and formulae, Social science is USES is recorded records and comment on the specific things research methods. Many people will explain this phenomenon for social science research object of uncertainty namely contingency and no regularity too much. Actually, if a pure natural science research reality phenomenon also will have a large contingency exist. To throw balls landing, for example, whereabouts distance (deformation caused by gravity change, ground rough), air resistance, cosmic rays, gas dust, internal molecular motion, someone is using hand holds... Are unknown influencing factors; And as uniform rectilinear movements, the world did not exist (temporary not consider differential world). But because of natural science USES is idealized method, i.e. not consider contingency factors, these problems can be solved. Besides natural science is not from which has been study abstract model, physics truly become a precise discipline, from Newton began to, and before that is in the experience, and scientific period of practice of historians now research methods are quite similar. Therefore Idealized social science to large-scale rule change, also should use for reference type the method of social idealize history research.
现代自然科学和社会科学在研究方法上有本质的不同：自然科学采用对具体事物的理想化模型进行研究的方法，其成果表现为放之四海而皆准的定理定律和公式；社会科学则采用的是记载记录和评论具体事物的研究方法。很多人将这种现象解释为社会科学研究对象的不确定性即偶然性和无规律性太多。其实，自然科学若研究一个纯现实的现象也会有大量的偶然性存在。以扔球落地为例，下落距离（形变引起重心改变、地面不平）、空气阻力、宇宙射线、气体尘埃、内部分子运动、有人用手托……都是未知的影响因素；又如匀速直线运动，世界上并不存在（暂不考虑导数世界）。但由于自然科学采用的是理想化的方法，即不考虑偶然性因素，这些问题就可以解决了。况且自然科学也不是自产生以来就去研究抽象模型的，物理学真正成为一门精密学科，是从艾萨克·牛顿开始的，而在这之前则处于经验科学时期，与现在的实践历史学家的研究方法很相似。因此社会科学要想大规模规律化，也应该借鉴式的使用理想化的方法，对社会历史进行理想化的研究。
Idealized research methods, as the name suggests, is the ideal state of a kind of historical research methods. Ideal is the only retains research needs limited factors and ignore other factors exist the idealistic state. Use idealized method to study the history theory system called idealized history model. Make a Utopian society method has decomposition realistic state method, only to save YinSa and ignoring secondary research YuFa etc various methods. Other methods in later in this paper, an example of a key part is involved here speak on decomposition realistic state method.
理想化的研究方法，顾名思义，就是在理想状态中进行历史研究的一种方法。理想状态就是只保留研究需要的有限因素而忽略其他因素存在的理想化的状态。使用理想化方法研究出的历史理论体系叫做理想化历史模型。制作一个理想化社会的方法有分解现实状态法、仅存研究因素法和忽略次要因素法等等多种方法。其他方法在本文后面的举例部分有所涉及，这里重点讲一讲分解现实状态法。
Decomposition reality, which is to state method for some practical condition decomposition multiple subinterfaces state, each state are only a child with a unit of academic research properties, each child state called an ideal state. So-called a unit of academic research nature means the state have generized the nature in the study can be considered only show only a properties. Real society is from a certain number of idealized social model synthetic, realistic man is from a certain number of idealistic person model synthetic. In different research topic under a unit of academic research are quite different in nature, depending on the circumstances that.
分解现实状态法，就是把现实状态分解为若干多个子状态，每一个子状态都只带有一个单位的学术研究性质，每个子状态称为一个理想状态。所谓一个单位的学术研究性质指的是该状态所表现出来的性质在研究中可以看作是只能表现出唯一一个性质。现实社会是由一定数量的理想化社会模型合成的，现实的人是由一定数量的理想化人的模型合成的。在不同的研究课题下一个单位的学术研究性质是不同的，要视具体情况而定。
Such as specific as an emperor, can put him down into name model (this is a only his name this one nature of history models), emperor model (losing everything personal characteristics, retain only is emperor this one properties), character model people, etc. Emperor model and can be divided into contribution amount model (only contribution to this one properties) and take model people, etc. For model and can be decomposed for economic exploitation model and political exploitation model people, etc. Character model and can be divided into a series of model. When research, the only problem involves the emperor and his other property relations is not big, can use the emperor model (only the emperor character of a point), then the emperor is considered as a nature, namely, a unit of academic research properties. When the study of a certain problem mainly involves is its political exploitation, as the emperor would no longer as display only a properties, so need to points down. Note: in a specific historical things, can't take its each an ideal state of matter, otherwise you will study that much 能量 carefully guarded. It's like physics is not a specific physical phenomena of each ideal state that they often only research research one of the two important state.
比如具体的一个皇帝，可以把他分解成名字模型人（这是一个只有他的名字这一个性质的历史模型）、皇帝模型人（丧失一切个人特征，只保留是皇帝这一个性质）、性格模型人等等；皇帝模型人又可分解为贡献量模型人（只有贡献这一个性质）和索取模型人等等；索取模型人又可以分解为经济剥削模型人和政治剥削模型人等等；性格模型人又可分解为一系列的模型人。当研究的问题只涉及到皇帝而与该人其他性质关系不大时，可使用皇帝模型人（只有皇帝性质的一个点），此时皇帝可以看作是一个性质，即一个单位的学术研究性质。当研究某一问题主要涉及的是其政治性剥削时，身为皇帝就不能再看作只表现一个性质，所以需要再分下去。注意：在研究一个具体历史事物时，不可以把其每一个理想状态都研究的面面俱到，否则会使大量精力白白消耗。这就像物理学并不是把某一个具体的物理现象的每一个理想状态都研究明白，他们往往只研究其中的一两个重要状态。
In natural science, a mathematical formula of proposed must undergo the theory or experiment proof to just go, and this is what is history scholars are missing. The very popular in academic history factual proof law, this is very necessary. However, in no sense demonstrates support, any facts may have been a coincidence. Depend entirely on the facts feasibility study meeting makes Gudzafflheng, coincidence is popular, and for 伪证罪 manufacturing plays a large role in promoting. Generally speaking, historical facts are used, it puts 前锋 the idea of finding and understanding theory, rather than to prove that the idea. But that shouldn't blame historians, with no history of scholars, to idealize a theory, especially mathematical theory theory proved to be unimaginable. Idealized in this field with unique role.
在自然科学领域，一个数学公式的提出必须要经过理论或实验的证明才行，而这正是历历史学界所缺少的。在历史学界很盛行事实论证法，这是非常必要的。但是，在没有道理论证支持的情况下，任何事实都可能是巧合。完全依靠事实论证会使孤证、巧合大行其道，并对伪证的制造起了很大的促进作用。一般来说，历史事实是用来提出设想、反证和理解理论的，而不是用来证明设想的。但这并不应该怪罪历史学家，在没有理想化的历史学界，对于一个理论特别是数学化的理论进行理论证明是不可想象的。理想化在这一领域具有独到的作用。
History and physics for research object different and different, regular type law is different also. Physics formula is decided type, such as free fallers formula formula of 0.5 □= g * t□ t,（原文缺字） an idealization particle physics in 500m falling, does not count all resistance, criterion must and certain -though 10s.Historical rules have already in the above type (such as something new novel degrees formula), but because some of the subjectivity of the historical process of participation, so also exists another type. Sm choose degrees formula gives is capital should be how to choose the best results (administration) instead of determining capital must choose to do so. Due to various reasons (especially the subjective 理性), a full capital can choose a choice degrees extremely low administration this. But capital if not to press this rule choice would suffer a loss of Penalties, and violates degrees (and formula of the calculated value of the poor) that the greater punishment. So it is a violation – punishment type of 数学ematical formula. Generally speaking, don't involve people the subjectivity of the choice of history is decided formula for type formula, conversely is more violation - punishment type formula.
历史学和物理学因研究对象不同而规律不同，规律类型也不同。物理学公式是决定型公式，比如说自由落体公式h=1/2gt2，一个理想化的物理质点在500m高处落下，不计一切阻力，则必须且一定用时10s。历史规律中既有这种类型（如新事物新颖度公式），但由于历史过程中有人的主观性的参与，所以也存在另一种类型。资政选择度公式给出的是资本应该如何选择政本(最佳结果)而不是决定资本一定如此选择。由于各种原因（特别是主观原因），一个资本完全可以选择一个选择度极低的政本。但资本如果不按此规律选择会遭受损失性惩罚，并且违反度（与公式的计算值的差）越大所受惩罚就越大。所以这是一个“违反——惩罚”型的数学公式。一般来说，不涉及人的主观性选择的历史公式多是决定型公式，反之则多是“违反——惩罚”型的公式。
Many historians believe history is not predict, because some of the subjectivity of the historical process involved in, so history determinism is not correct. From the above analysis, we can see that history formula is not all decision model, thus history determinism is not correct cannot explain history can't predict. And according to a historical figure of the subjective may choose to calculate violate degrees, the end result is the emergence of a separate 函数, this also is a kind of prediction. Of mathematical formula, under the guidance of each option of the corresponding future can be accurately describe them, no popper's history determinism, still can predict the future.
很多历史学家认为历史是不能预测的，因为历史过程中有人的主观性参与，所以历史决定论是不正确的。从上面的分析可以看出，历史学公式并不全是决定型的，因此历史决定论是不正确的不能说明历史不可以预测。可与根据一个历史人物的主观性的可能选择来计算违反度，最终的结果是出现一个分段函数，这也是一种预测。在精确的数学公式的指导下，每一种选择所对应的未来都可以被精确的描述出来，没有波普尔的历史决定论，照样可以预测未来。
Idealized research methods to solve the historiography of measurement was first crisis. This method applies to all theory problem, its research scope is much bigger than the metrological historiography. This method due to need only a material to it puts 前锋 the idea, so don't worry about material not true (can only use as the French revolution such public recording materials, and don't rummaged personal records). This method does not use statistics theory, research is complicated things of the main one or two inevitability factors, make deduces the formula is concise and lively, easy to study, master and learning. So whether idealized's historical scientific formula and the historical statistical formulas (calculate historiography) watershed. Idealized can effectively avoid physical socialist come up, because once completed utopian, universal validity theory system will be formed, speculative history philosopher dreams will come true, he didn't need to contrived mechanical re-broadcasts ideas of physics.
理想化的研究方法首先解决了计量历史学的危机。此方法适用于研究一切理论问题，其研究范围比计量史学大得多。此方法由于只需要少量材料来提出设想，因此不必担心材料的不真实（可以只使用如法国大革命这类公共记录材料，而不必去翻找个人的记载）。此方法不使用统计学理论，研究的只是复杂事物的最主要的一两个必然性因素，令推导出的公式简洁明快，易于研究、掌握和学习。所以是否理想化是历史的科学公式与历史的统计公式（计量史学）的分水岭。理想化可以有效地避免物理主义的出现，因为一旦完成理想化，具有普遍有效性的理论体系就会形成，思辨历史哲学家的梦想就会实现，就不需要再去牵强附会的机械的照搬物理学的概念了。
Since almost all the ideal state in the realistic society is not exist, so the absolute experiment is can't do. This with physics meets the conditions are the same, the physics experiment is not absolute experiment. But physics is very good at using realistic experiment. History scholars also need such a batch of experimental historians. For experimental historians who historical facts is experimental phenomena, history books that experiment report. So, if also like physics as remove each experiment record personality and only see its generality, historical law also can use experimental proof. The neo-kantian representatives wen 德班 and lee Celtic believed that history is to only appear once phenomenon of understanding. But in fact, physics every test is different, the same only physicists to study the one idealized part, and history if only one aspect, can also study repeat experiments. The real problem is not in history and physics disparity itself, but in any people to do 信息技术 If no experimental physicists efforts, theoretical physicist saw the experimental phenomena and historians see historical events as well.
由于几乎所有理想状态在现实社会中都是不存在的，所以绝对的实验是做不了的。这与物理学所遇到的情况是一样的，物理学所进行的实验也不是绝对的实验。但物理学却很善于利用现实的实验。历历史学界也需要这样一批实验历史学家。对于实验历史学家来说，历史事实就是实验现象，历史书就是实验报告。所以，如果也像物理学一样去掉每次实验纪录的个性而只看其共性，历史规律也是可以用实验证明的。新康德主义的代表文德尔班和海因里希·李凯尔特认为历史是对只出现一次的现象的理解。但事实上，物理学每一次实验都是不同的，相同的只是物理学家想研究的那一个理想化的部分，而历史如果只研究某一方面，也是可以重复实验的。真正的问题不在历史学和物理学的差距本身，而在于有没有人去做。如果没有实验物理学家的努力，理论物理学家所看到的实验现象就和历史学家看到的历史事件的效果一样。
THE error of Analysis causes send consists largely in their historical research attainments is quite deep but for physics is only stay in understanding surface For example, in the analysis of pie that physicists can put aside specific topic, abstract research particle motion rule, and guide the objective world, is not a problem; Historians cannot put aside specific object, abstract human rule, for example it cannot put aside specific exists. From the 透视 of history, who provides all historians recorded forever just described in the past? So "historians cannot put aside specific object" should instead be: "recorded historians cannot put aside specific object", they in history study is very necessary, but not be all historians. From a physical standpoint, if a physicist wanted to study a car 混凝土 of the car is how to start, he can put aside the car's personality? This car is commonness and individuality of unity, is not only a P = Fv can explain, different car engines both similarities and differences, this is like Julius Caesar and napoleon both similarities and differences as well. Visible, the reasons causing the result is never analysis pie said historiography and physics essential difference between the so-called "to what", but as the research target problem. Physics if not chose to universal law as the research target but choose records concrete object cannot put aside specific object, History if chose to universal law as the research target can be apart from specific topic, abstract research particle motion rule. For this 理性 analysis sent to proof of history cannot be universal law, but was in fact historians first think history cannot universal law of that makes the phenomenon.
分析派的错误原因很大程度上在于他们对历史学的研究造诣颇深但对物理学的理解则只停留于表面。举一个例子，分析派认为物理学家可以撇开具体的课题，抽象的研究质点运动的规律，指点在客观世界中是并不存在的；历史学家却不能撇开具体的客体，抽象的研究人的规律，例如它不能撇开具体存在的人。从历史角度看，谁规定了所有的历史学家永远只是记载描述过去的人？所以历史学家却不能撇开具体的客体应改为：记载历史学家却不能撇开具体的客体，他们在历史学的研究中是非常必要的，但绝不是历史学家的全部。从物理角度看，如果一个物理学家想要研究一辆具体的汽车是怎样启动的，他能撇开这辆汽车的个性吗？这辆汽车是共性和个性的统一，决不是只用一个P=Fv就可以解释的，不同的汽车的发动机既有相同之处又有不同之处，这就像凯撒和拿破仑·波拿巴既有相同之处又有不同之处一样。可见，造成这一结果的原因决不是分析派所说的历史学与物理学之间所谓的“本质区别”，而是以什么为研究目标的问题。物理学如果不是选择了以普遍规律为研究目标而是选择记载具体事物就不能撇开具体的客体；历史学如果选择了以普遍规律为研究目标则可以撇开具体的课题，抽象的研究质点运动的规律。分析派以此为理由妄图证明历史学不能普遍规律化，而是实际上正是历史学家们先认为历史学不能普遍规律化，才造成了这一现象。
It is fair to say that measuring historiography and mathematical history also to certain questions is simplified. For example blessing riegl in studying railway and growth in the us, the relationship between with wheat, rye, pork, beef, the four kinds of agricultural tariffs to calculate railway in the us economy "primary influence" (railway freight rate reduced total); Laplace at research civilization development problem is to press a new thoughts in produce after, can continue to transmit to the study. It is this simplified deeply reflects measurement historiography, mathematical historiography and idealized historiography of substaintial distinction. With blessing riegl as an example, he in the railway with America's growth, "concluded the place of writing is" in 1840 ~ 1890 50 years, if no railway, the American economy would so growth." First leave this conclusion is correct or not, this conclusion itself was obviously with a method of solving realistic specific problems of tone written out, not even allude to his inside the simplified conditions (数学ematical history too). While the historiography of conclusion of idealistic format is: "in XXXX, under the condition of regular XXXX". Visible, measuring the history and historiography of simplified mathematical reasons not to get simplified formula, but in order to remove those due to quantify (such as f riegl could not spend all 搬运作用 factors considered fully) and hindering on the actual problem solving factors. Measuring the history and historiography of the essence of the simplified mathematical purpose is to better establishment mathematical model of the actual things, it's like hope by introducing new productive forces to better safeguard old relations of production and political system of the late qing dynasty westernization movement situation. No simplified model is no birth; Simplified capital-the model, also brought mistake, because the model has and measurement historian, mathematical historians have pursuit of realistic conclusion had the very big disparity. This is the two historiography failure. But idealistic historiography doesn't require direct NU'EST practical problems of the mathematical model, the requirements phase physicists treat natural objects so treat historical fact, requirements thoroughly scientific idealized. The conclusion is usually not necessarily idealize (in a sense that must not) and the historical what actually happened the same.
公正的说，计量史学和数理史学也对某些问题进行了简化处理。例如福格尔在研究铁路与美国经济的增长之间的关系时，以小麦、黑麦、猪肉、牛肉这四种农产品的运价来测算铁路对美国经济的“原生影响”（铁路所降低的运价的总额）；拉氏在研究文明的发展问题时是按一种新思想在产生之后，便能持续的传播下去来进行研究的。正是这种简化，深刻地反映出计量史学、数理史学与理想化史学的本质区别。以福格尔为例，他在《铁路与美国经济的增长》的结论之处写的是“在1840～1890年的50年间，如果没有铁路，美国经济也会照样增长。”先别管这个结论正确与否，这个结论本身显然是在用一种解决现实的具体的问题的口气写出来的，里面只字未提他的简化条件（数理史学也是如此）。而理想化史学的结论的格式是：“在xxxx的条件下，有规律xxxx”。可见，计量史学和数理史学进行简化的原因不是为了得到简化后的公式，而是为了去掉那些因为不能量化（如福格尔不可能把所有的运输因素考虑完全）而阻碍对实际问题的解决的因素。计量史学和数理史学的简化的本质目的是为了更好的建立实际事物的数学模型。不简化则没有模型的诞生；简化虽然带来了模型，也带来了错误，因为此时的模型已经与计量史家、数理史家所追求的现实结论有了很大的差距了。这就是这两家史学失败的原因。而理想化史学并不要求直接建立实际问题的数学模型，要求相物理学家对待自然物体那样对待历史事实，要求彻底的科学的理想化。理想化得出的结论通常不一定（在某种意义上说是一定不）与历史真实发生的情况相同。
Because of contingency and secondary factors, pure realistic specific problem is forever also may use math to direct solution, tried to establish a pure realistic problems of the mathematics models of effort is inevitable will fail. Whether directly on the results of the study are used to NU'EST the mathematical model is realistic society historiography, mathematical historiography and measuring the historiography of essential difference between idealize. Just historical facts concerning historical research method in history in the research of the 固体 cannot little, but simply so do not solve all problems. Therefore need math formulas of introduction, need idealized method into, with each other in three kinds of historical mathematical methods distinction, I recommend this brand new history research methods established branch named history idealized analytics.
由于大量偶然性和次要因素的存在，纯现实的具体的问题是永远也不可能用数学来直接解决的，妄图建立一个纯现实问题的数学模型的努力是必然会失败的。是否将研究成果直接用于建立现实社会的数学模型是计量史学、数理史学与理想化史学的本质区别。就史实论史实的研究方法在历史学的研究中固不可少，然而单纯如此去作并不能解决所有问题。因此需要数学公式的引入，需要理想化方法的引入，为了与其他三种历史数学化方法区别开来，我建议将这一全新的历史学研究方法所建立的分支命名为历史理想化数学分析。
History once completed idealized mathematical, including the inevitability of things will form the decision model function, contingency things can form of section 函数 Through these two functions can NU'EST history best choice model (i.e. can choose violates but will be punished) to completion forecast (make sure the subjective options after is the historical decided). With the further development of history, even can determine the contingency things will choose the scope of section function, can predict whether someone would violate optimal model and violation degree has how old, so accurately predict possible.
历史学一旦完成理想化的数学化，其中的必然性事物会形成决定型函数，偶然性事物会形成分段函数。利用这两种函数可以建立起历史最佳选择模型（也就是说可以选择违反但要受惩罚）来完成预测（确定主观选择项之后就是历史决定）。随着历史学的进一步发展，甚至可以确定偶然性事物会选择的分段函数的范围，可预测是否有人会违反最佳模型，违反度有多大，于是准确预测成为可能。
History of contingency and subjectivity cannot rule change, mathematical problems have been analyzed the historical criticism philosopher negation of historical existence rule of reason, also is speculative 哲学 of history, the unsolved problem. History would ever be scientific is a very important philosophical question. Idealized method of research put forward, for resolving this problem made his own efforts. In this paper, the author wants the last, said in history world found a Newton type of law 雷克萨斯IS300 years speculative history philosopher direction, also be ranked in the ranks of history science and the necessary condition. But these predecessors' efforts to failure. However, the failure of traditional speculative 哲学 of history cannot fundamentally denied the possibility of historical scientific research methods it might just be the fault. Please believe that with the idealized method of use, speculative history philosopher ideal will realize!
历史学中的偶然性和主观性无法规律化、数学化的问题一直是分析批判历史哲学家否定历史存在规律的理由，也是思辨历史哲学尚未解决的难题。历史究竟能不能科学化是一个很重要的哲学问题。理想化研究方法的提出，为这一问题的解决做出了自己的努力。在本文的最后，笔者想说，在历史世界里发现一种艾萨克·牛顿式的规律是300多年来思辨历史哲学家努力的方向，也是历史学身于科学的行列的必要条件。但这些前辈的努力都归于失败。然而，传统思辨历史哲学的失败不能从根本上否定历史科学化的可能性，这完全可能是研究方法的错误造成的。请相信，随着理想化方法的使用，思辨历史哲学家的理想终将实现！
评价
历史学界的格雷戈尔·孟德尔、21世纪新史学的开创者
孟德尔（1822-1884年）是遗传学的奠基人，被誉为现代遗传学之父。孟德尔通过豌豆实验，发现了孟德尔遗传定律。
孟德尔清楚自己的发现所具有的划时代意义，但他还是慎重地重复实验了多年，以期更加臻于完善。1865年，孟德尔在布鲁恩科学协会的会议厅，将自己的研究成果分两次宣读。第一次，与会者礼貌而兴致勃勃地听完报告，孟德尔只简单地介绍了试验的目的、方法和过程，为时一小时的报告就使听众如坠入云雾中。
第二次，格雷戈尔·孟德尔着重根据实验数据进行了深入的理论证明。可是，伟大的孟德尔思维和实验太超前了。尽管与会者绝大多数是布鲁恩自然科学协会的会员，中既有化学家、地质学家和生物学家，也有生物学专业的植物学家、藻类学家。然而，听众对连篇累续的数字和繁复枯燥的论证毫无兴趣。他们实在跟不上孟德尔的思维。孟德尔用心血浇灌的豌豆所告诉他的秘密，时人不能与之共识，一直被埋没了35年之久！
豌豆的杂交实验从1856年至1864年共进行了8年。格雷戈尔·孟德尔将其研究的结果整理成论文发表，但未引起任何反响。其原因有三个。
第一，在孟德尔论文发表前7年（1859年），查尔斯·达尔文的名著《物种起源》出版了。这部著作引起了科学界的兴趣，几乎全部的生物学家转向生物进化的讨论。这一点也许对孟德尔论文的命运起了决定性的作用。
第二，当时的科学界缺乏理解孟德尔定律的思想基础。首先那个时代的科学思想还没有包含孟德尔论文所提出的命题：遗传的不是一个个体的全貌，而是一个个性状。其次，格雷戈尔·孟德尔论文的表达方式是全新的，他把生物学和统计学、数学结合了起来，使得同时代的博物学家很难理解论文的真正含义。
第三，有的权威出于偏见或不理解，把孟德尔的研究视为一般的杂交实验，和别人做的没有多大差别。
孟德尔晚年曾经充满信心地对他的好友，布鲁恩高等技术学院大地测量学教授尼耶塞尔说：“看吧，我的时代来到了。”这句话成为伟大的预言。直到孟德尔逝世16年后，豌豆实验论文正式出版后34年，他从事豌豆试验后43年，预言才变成现实。
随着20世纪公鸡的第一声啼鸣，来自三个国家的三位学者同时独立地“重新发现”孟德尔遗传定律。1900年，成为遗传学史乃至生物科学史上划时代的一年。从此，遗传学进入了格雷戈尔·孟德尔时代。
参考资料
萨勒•沙利文.东方娱乐时报.2023-12-02