Humans have come to accept that History by mere definition is the exploration and study of history whereas the Human Sciences are defined as the in depth study of social, biological and cultural aspects of human beings. History and Human Sciences seek to influence humans through language, reason, and emotion. By looking at the title, I am coming to the conclusion that historians only focus on understanding the past and the human scientist is only looking to change the future. That conclusion is reasonable due to reasoning of the historian or the scientist. They use reasoning to do their job. In order to answer this question I am making the assumption that it states that history solely concentrates on unraveling the past, while Human Sciences exclusively seeks to change the future, but I tend to prove that is not the case.
The historian's task is to shed light on the what, why, and how of the past, based on inferences from the evidence of the present. The evidence will have to come from many sources such as information collected from stories passed from person to person, archeological findings, primary sources, recording on tape, paper or stone, scientific analysis of objects. Historical data do not speak for themselves; the archives are incomplete, unclear, contradictory, and very confusing. The historian has to interpret individual pieces of evidence; and the historian needs to be able to fit the mass of evidence into a coherent and truthful story and in order for that to happen a historian has to research and try to understand the past. History can not be accepted if it has not been researched and analyzed. Understanding the past is true to the area of knowledge, History. No one is going to accept the past unless someone comes a...
... middle of paper ...
... is to understand the past. If they did go back and analyze the findings of documents or the stories they heard then we would not have the area of knowledge, History. Historian’s task can also be considered in changing the future because it is because of their research and analysis that the science field is able to improve on what existed in the past. Historians might see it as a catastrophic event, but scientists see it as an event that leads to an opportunity as a breakthrough for further progress. Although history itself deals mostly only with the past and does not approach the future within itself it can be used through inductive reasoning as a guide in order to shape the future action in the human sciences The natural sciences approach the future with knowledge of the past. So a human scientist is not by contrast just looking forward to changing the future.
Jared Diamond Argues that the worst mistake in Human History is the invention and widespread introduction of agriculture, because it has created a plethora of social, economic, and health problems for the word. One example of this is when the article states, “Hunter-Gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition.” This illustrates that the author's main argument is that agriculture was the worst mistake in human history because it shows how agriculture has negatively impacted health of both early farmers and people today by creating mass produced bulk crops that are low in nutrition. Furthermore, another example
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
A beginning group of historians to take a closer look at is the empiricists. The empiricists have a very strictly factual and logical view on history and how to examine it. They believe that past is both “observable and verifiable” and that through adherence to three strict principles, the past can be represented objectively and accurately. (Green, Troup 3) The three aforementioned principles can be summed up as: meticulously examining historical evidence and verifying the evidence with references, making sure the research is completely impartial and free of biases and prejudices, and using an inductive, or observational, method of reasoning. (Green, Troup 3) The empiricists seek to find universal historical truths through objective research and sticking to the facts.
...xpect nor want historians to agree in their interpretations of the past, for then new discoveries would never be made and our knowledge would be limited. It is through this synthesis of knowledge and constant dialogue between historians that the most comprehensive representation of the Progressive Era, and ultimately history in general, is created.
First, the historian must refer to primary sources, must describe how he selected his sources and how they are useful, and must quote, refer to, or interpret sources responsibly (representing their context, content, and importance as accurately and fairly as possible) and precisely (using them to clearly support his specific arguments, not haphazardly or too generally). This satisfies the reader by relating (at least one version) of what really happened, and showing how the author justifies his analysis in light of historical fact.
“The scientific study of how humans developed did not begin until the 1800s in Europe. Until that time, people relied on religious explanations of how humans came into existence. Starting in the 1500s a scientific revolution began to sweep Europe. Thinkers started using scientific methods and experiments to try to better understand the world and the creatures living in it. Eventually these methods were turned to the question of human origins” (The Nature Of Human Origins, 1). Earth made it possible for species to change over time because Ancient Earth provides ability to plenty of time.The Homo Sapien a is very complex creature. The species started off very simple by living in caves and surviving with little food and then later evolved into a species that were able to do many more complex things. The first species was Sahelanthropus tchadensis They were one of the most simple humans in that time period and on. They had very small skulls compared to Homo Sapiens today and their motor skills were just the same. We have evolved and changed for the better both mentally and physically. The Evolution of Homo Sapiens started off simple, such as the Neanderthals, and now we are the most advanced species to ever walk the planet so far.
Author Yuval Noah Harari has a unique way of reviewing the past fourteen billion years in his monograph Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. His intention for writing this book is mainly to bring up the conversation of the human condition and how it has affected the course of history. In this case, the human condition coincides with the inevitable by-products of human existence. These include life, death, and all the emotional experiences in between. Harari is trying to determine how and why the events that have occurred throughout the lives of Homo Sapiens have molded our social structures, the natural environment we inhabit, and our values and beliefs into what they are today.
Throughout history, humans have asked many questions in regards to our own beginnings. Religion and science have examined what makes us who we are, and have tried to answer the enduring question of our own modern origins. Scientifically, theories are still debated as to when, where, and how modern Homo sapiens came to be what they are today. There are two major theories that now dominate the discussions of experts in the field of biological anthropology: the “Out-of-Africa” model and the “Multiregional” model of evolution. Stringer and Andrews argue that genetic and paleontological evidence supports a more recent Out-of-Africa model as opposed to a more drawn out Multiregional method that also incorporates gene flow (1263). In contrast, Wolpoff, Hawks, and Caspari claim that the Multiregional model is misunderstood, and clearing up discrepancies could bolster support for this theory instead (129). Pearson notes that while people like Wolpoff et al defend the Multiregional model, archaeological evidence seems to show that likely no intermixture between modern Homo sapiens and other archaic hominins happened during the spread of early Homo sapiens out of Africa (145). It is easy to see that the debate lingers onwards with an end not clearly in sight. This paper will further examine the arguments asserted by these authors and identify their core arguments, the data they use to support their arguments and determine which paper is the most convincing of the three.
History is a story told over time. It is a way of recreating the past so it can be studied in the present and re-interpreted for future generations. Since humans are the sole beneficiaries of history, it is important for us to know what the purpose of history is and how historians include their own perspective concerning historical events. The purpose and perspective of history is vital in order for individuals to realise how it would be almost impossible for us to live out our lives effectively if we had no knowledge of the past. Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying.
Before Kuhn’s book was written, the commonly held position by scientists and philosophers of science, such as Mach and Otswald , about the structure of science; was that it involved linear progression as a result of an incremental accumulation of knowledge from the activities undertaken by members of the scientific community. They thought that as generations of scientists observed more and more, their understanding of a particular scientific fact would become better refined through an ever growing stockpile of facts, theories and methods. The aim of the historian of science would be to pin point the man and the moment in time a further discovery was made; whilst also describing the obstacles that inhibited scientific progression.
What is history? History is the analysis and interpretation of the past. History allows us to study both continuity and change over time. It helps to explain how we have changed throughout time. Part of history is using pieces of evidence to interpret and revisit the past. Examples of evidence include written documents, photographs, buildings, paintings, and artifacts. Is history important? When looking at what the definition of history entails, it is clear to see history is in fact, important.
The human sciences and natural sciences are considered knowledge by many worldwide, as their arguments having convinced people one way or another. While the natural sciences focus on swaying belief by showing duplicable evidence through a strict and standardized methodology, the human sciences focus on explaining how things are and how they came to be using logic, reason, and an understanding of human behavior.
In my opinion , history is something that helps us remember the past , in order to better our future decisions. History is about the important past events that had a large impact back in the day, which contributed to the removal and or addition of certain things that build up our society today. People tend to do better once they become educated on what was going on in our past history. Having knowledge about the history of something is how one starts to progress in life and make adjustments in order to make your future into whatever you desire. If history didn’t exist we would have to
I define history as important events that have happened in the past, and the ones that are presently happening. At some time or another everything will be considered history. History tells a story, whether it’s written, painted, carved, or sung; a collection of events that someone explains to you that is usually important.
Science and Technology has been around from the beginning of time. It evolved from the everyday efforts of people trying to improve their way of life. Throughout history, humankind has developed and utilized tools, machines, and techniques without understanding how or why they worked or comprehending their physical or chemical composition. Before we go any further a definition has to be given for both Science and Technology because they are both different in their own right even though the two are almost indistinguishable. According to the Oxford Dictionary Technology can be defined as the knowledge or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences, while Science can be defined as the branch of knowledge involving systematized observation and experiment. Science can be further divided into three separate categories; Pure, Applied and Natural Sciences. In addition technology is often defined as applied science, it is simply the application of scientific knowledge to achieve a specific human purpose, however, historical evidence suggests technology is a product of science.