K.International School Tokyo TOK Essay “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge? Word Count: “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge? Knowing the future is as important as understanding the past. Understanding the past is significant to deduce patterns to prevent negative events from history from repeating itself in the future. Changing the future is difficult if there is no understanding of knowledge from the past. Humans define history as an exploration of past events whereas the human sciences are the study of behavior, which has no absolutely correct answer. Both human scientists and historians use the Ways of Knowing (WOK) including perception, emotion, and reason to aid the study of the past and to change the future. If historians’ primary focus is only towards the past, then there will be weaknesses in gathering knowledge; and vice versa, if human scientists are looking for solutions to change the future, then they should also review the past to aid understanding for the future. The historians primary study the past, but with a focus towards the future whilst human scientists use the past as well as the present in order to make prediction and change the future; however, both AOKs share the difficulty of having humans being an uncontrolled variable. The question is to what extent is history cyclical and can it ever be avoided? Historians do not simply study the past just for acquiring knowledge from the past, but also to use it to provide foresight to the ... ... middle of paper ... ...e University. Retrieved January, 2014 from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html Landau, E. (2013, October 19). Rare skull sparks human evolution controversy. CNN. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull-human-evolution/ Nelson, C. (1999). About the Great Depression. About the Great Depression. Retrieved January 18, 2014, from http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/about.htm Riedel, S. (2005, January 18). NCBI. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/ Smithsonian Institution. (2014). Introduction to Human Evolution. Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution
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.
read for my book report. Roger Lewin is a British award-winning science author and writer of 20 books. He was employed at New Scientist in London for about nine years. He went to Washington, D.C. to write books and other pieces for science for ten years as news editor. The book by him that I chose, in 201 pages, this book explained answers to questions like where and when modern humans first appeared, what features distinguish modern humans, who our immediate ancestors were, and many more. For example, the subtopics are; the African origin, the multiregional origin, the archeology of modern humans, language and modern human origins, symbolism and images, mitochondrial divergence, human variation, and an overview of homosapieans and the modern debate. In this book there are two main views in paleoanthropology, the study of humankind, about the origin of modern humans: the African origin and the multiregional origin.
...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.
Tuttle, R.H. (2015) ‘Human evolution’, in Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution (Accessed: 14 March 2016).
The origin of modern humans is one of the most widely debated concerns in the area of paleoanthropology. Ever since the discovery of the Neanderthal in the mid 1800’s, scientists such as Charles Darwin and many others have been overly curious about the similarity of man to certain great apes and how over long periods of time have evolved from different archaic forms of humans up to today’s homo sapiens.
I am often asked Why do people study history? Is it because it makes people feel a strong connection to their ancestor? Or perhaps the thrill of uncovering lost knowledge drives history forward. History is a complex and delicate subject which unlike science there may not be just one answer so historians must continually question the “generally accepted truth.” By seeking knowledge through history, we as humans are forced to face our own personal biases by either putting them aside or using them as fuel to support one’s own hypothesis. The True historian will look beyond their opinions and cultural restrictions by collecting information from both sides and then determining the best course of action. During the twentieth century, there was a shift in idea on how historians should analyze and study history. Modern day historians study the past in hopes of better understanding the present. One technique historians use to narrow down specific events is by looking for tuning points or eras of major change that lead to a greater impact. One cataclysmic event that has recently become under great debate
Human Evolution. (2009). In R. Robinson (Ed.), Biology. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow
In modern days, scientific discourse between ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ scientists has raised questions about what they should or shouldn 't give proper attention and further study. One example of this, is the orthodox narrative of modern human history shared by geologists and archaeologists around the world, which tells us that the first technologically advanced human civilizations started in Mesopotamia around 3,000-5,000 BC. However, a series of evidence brought forth by two science skeptics and scientists suggest that the current narrative of our history could be inaccurate. They argue that it’s possible that a lost, technologically advanced ancient civilization mapped and explored the globe with great accuracy millennia before orthodox human history tells. From this debate arises a question: Should scientists focus exclusively on driving the current paradigm to its limits and not bother challenging it, even if other theories and scientific evidence defy the paradigm?
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.
.... The more time granted to us in the future allows historians and psychologists to engage in more scientific research and analysis to ensure that what we accept as accurate facts are kept as knowledge and facts that are proved false or inaccurate are discarded. There are dangers of manipulation when it comes to revisionist history, but with proper monitoring revisionist history ensures that our historical knowledge’s accuracy is maintained. We must use approach revising history with extreme caution and skepticism. The human sciences has had its share in correct theories and disproven theories, but the disproven theories also furthered knowledge in the human sciences since new discoveries were soon replaced such as how genetic influence replaced the clean slate theory. We must learn from our mistakes in order to redirect our approach to discovering accurate knowledge.
The language in this knowledge claim allows for multiple interpretations. Hence, we will assume that the past refers to both the distant and recent past, and that the phrase “change the future” includes further developing the AoK of human science's ability to predict ways to change the future. To check the validity of the knowledge claim, we will look at both the AoK history and the AoK human sciences in relation to the past and future respectively.
Historians use sources and knowledge to piece together the history of the human existence while Human scientist study the human behavior as well as the lifestyle we live in. They indeed focus on these areas and provide information to each other. However, a historian will also look to the future and foretell using his or her knowledge of the past. In the same way, a human scientist might look at human behavior today and compare it with the past. For when we look at human science, historians find it as useful term for science with the word ‘human’ as the subject (Smith). This opens the possibilities for the historian to research and thus history can be considered as a ‘Human Science’ (Smith).
In the same way as knowledge of the past helps to improve computers, it also improves the quality of life for mankind. Knowledge of our past helps us to see how humans react and deal with situations. this allows us to take preventative measures. There was a time when mankind was always at war with each other. Everyone was fighting to take each others land, food, and technology. Since then the United Nations have been created to prevent such types of pointless wars and now there are police which enforce the law and a government in which power lies in the people. There have been many bad times for humans in all parts of the world throughout history. There have been big and small wars with huge death tolls, small battles, famines, depressions, slavery and countless others events which could have been prevented if we had known what the outcome would be. Just as a person learns from their mistakes, knowledge of our history helps us to learn from our mistakes giving us insight into the future. Many events that have happened in our past no longer plague the world today. Slavery used to be prevalent ...
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.