I've been saying for some time now that the path to intellectual enlightenment isn't science, it's history. Science is important, but it calls for breaking things down. History, real history, as broad and as detailed as possible (including archeology) makes one question the assumptions that are thrust on us. History from as many sources as possible. "Wait a minute, different people have different views of the same event?"
And first person accounts forces one to drop interpretation and try and see what it was like to be there.
Salon.com Books | The Salon Interview: Neal Stephenson "There was a review of 'Cryptonomicon' with a line in it that struck me as interesting. The guy said, 'This is a book for geeks and the history buffs that they turn into.' I'm turning into one. I'm in this history book club, which is not all geeks but it's definitely got some serious geeks in it. It's been going for four or five years maybe. We're all consistently dumbfounded by how interesting history is when you read it yourself compared to how dull it was when they made you study it in school. We can't figure out why there's that gap. I think they try to cover too broad a sweep at once so you never get down to the individual people and their stories. It's all generalities. "
Yes, geeks that are more than obsessives find their way inevitably to history.
On a side note: I really like Stephenson's work, but I'm waiting for him to finish the cycle before reading it. I HATE having material dribbled out. Yes, I understand why it's done, but I don't like it. I have the latest Gene Wolfe sitting on my shelf, unread, for the same reason.
