Sorry. It seemed you were using Lumping as meaning combining data into larger summarizations, and are against that, or think it leads to errors. Maybe not.

Sure, if there was time to study all of history, that would be great. But sometimes you need summaries to provide context around the subject being deep dived, or more finely split. It isn't possible to split ad infinitum.

In the end all history is summary and interpretations. Some people take it too far, which I think you said, it is a sliding scale. It goes back and forth doesn't it, some people split and split, and find a lot of details, and then wrap it up and write a summary.

For formulas. I tend to think the understanding of the human animal will be cracked eventually. Being complex doesn't mean it cant be done. And we'll be able to find more 'formulaic' models of groups, and perhaps apply to history. But of course, it is speculation right now.

Of course, this 'speculative' history has been going on for hundreds of years. Aren't there historians just to study past historians that themselves tried to find 'models' of history. I'd say lumping has been part of the process for a long time.

But to come full circle, you need details from which to lump, so some groups go out finding details, and others try to put them back together again. It isn't all facts, it is to find out why things happened, and really that takes putting things back together.

Of course we are talking about a couple made up words lump/split, and really each encompass entire fields. Perhaps it is bad example since the linked article lumps too much? So I'm in position of defending lumping, when it started with a not very good example.