The claim is true but it has its exceptions,since both areas of knowledge contribute to understand the past in order to create the future ; evidence is the essence of both fields. History has clearly developed into an area of monumental importance. History is merely a compilation of evidence left. Historians beat history into something acceptable from mainstream values. This degradation of knowledge is also apparent in both human and natural sciences. This quote is examined and it is evident that both history and science change, first distorting the facts in order to shape it into the conventional opinion, and slowly change as society is changing. It is important to keep in mind that there are at the very least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific breakthrough.
History is not the past, history is constantly being updated and depends on the extent of the perspective from which it is studied. Try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society where there was absolutely no knowledge of the past. Everything that is written is based on past evidence. Differences in historical interpretations can also be influenced by contextual changes over time. It can be argued that we are able to look back on events and re-evaluate them objectively. As Reuben Abel stated,"History is far from being exclusively scientific or factual; it is also in large part creative...The historian, like the novelist, tells a story..." (174). Each historian assembles concrete sets of evidence, such as primary sources written by relevant people of the time. Each historian assembles a theory linking documents together with the events that are supposed to have occurred. I have seen first hand generations and their differences influen...
... middle of paper ...
...ally made through the process of reasoning and decision makings. Without any decisions that were made in history, none of the events would have happened to be recorded. There are different ways of reasoning; for example, in relation to history, the way Western textbooks reason the colonization of Africa and the way African textbooks reason the colonization would be different. In Western textbooks it would mostly explain how the western colonies came to Africa to civilize and help develop the country. However in African textbooks would likely explain how the westerns invaded their land and forced intensive labors upon african citizens. Most cases with this issue of reasoning to tell history and is claiming something is true because it cannot be proven wrong. It can be viewed that both countries are using double standards to excuse or support their own nations.
When I was in High School, my history teacher once said to me, “history is written by the victors.” In other words, those who win, decide how they will be remembered. For instance, the history of the United States and their interactions with Native Americans. Old (bias) history textbooks will tell us you how the white European “discovered” America and saved the native “savage” from himself or herself. However, this old way of thinking, only allows us one perspective. We never hear the Native Americans’ point of view. This is why historians, and the work they do, are so important to our society. Historians depend on evidence to develop a narrative and arguments about the past. Yet the arguments that they develop are strictly based on the primary
Research of the past is necessary to improve society, and prevent history from resurfacing. There is a debate of whether or not history is based on pure study or if it has been altered by those who tell it. Each side of this argument is represented, William H. McNeill claims that history is subjective rather than factual. Oscar Handlin rebuts this claim by stating that history is a collection of data and evidence. History is not objective and is altered over time. Within the article, “Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians”, McNeill states, “ Only by leaving things out, that is , relegating them to be disregarded…” (McNeill 13). Historians will include only the significant portions of history and leave out details
History is a discipline based on textual accounts of the past however it became necessary to look closer. A group of French historians watched as countless historians drew the same conclusions from the same experiences time after time, divorcing themselves from the “new social scientist adventuring among the economies and societies of the present.” The Annales school is interested in a science of humanity, human activities. “The function of the historian is not to declare that such a thought is objectively right or wrong but to state, or to suggest, what circumstances, in a particular time, made it thinkable.” The scholars of the Annales school used non-historians as much
It’s truly fascinating how there are so many different approaches to history, how so many different types of minds and schools of thought can come together to study the events of the world’s past. There are so many ways to approach what happened in our past, and the groups of historians previously mentioned are only a fraction of the actual number of different ways of researching and thinking that exists as it pertains to the study of history. History is in some ways, always a mystery, and all historians, regardless of schooling, training or biases, seek to accomplish one goal: to understand what occurred before us and why, and to use that knowledge to learn how the world was shaped into the world we live in today.
Even though historians are required to deduce what is accepted as understanding, they inevitably view history through a modern lens which provides a framework for the future similar to human scientists. Therefore, the assertion appears to be true to a certain extent as historians are forced to understand the past while human scientists must look to change the future. Yet, the past and future appear to be interchangeable in terms of importance for both the historian and human scientist attempting to derive knowledge.
173). Historians are not searching to raise their bias through the past; they are merely looking to tell the origin stories of our world. History, at its heart, is the search for objectivity and verified facts through primary sources. The theory that claims that our recorded history is filtered through opinions and contemporary ideas, could not be further from the truth.
History was not made by its self, but by the people. Humans have created a very great impact on the world physically, and though many other reasons. People have created the evolution of things: research, discoverers, philosophers, and many other people have changed how the world is, and how it is ran by. Every person has their own way of thinking, many of them don’t even think at all to create a new thing, a new reason of humanity. Now everything now has a definition to it, how its created, who discovered it, if an animal show how they are created, laws are not put in effort, even religion has its explanations.
To study history, the facts and information must be passed down. To do so, historians record the information in textbooks and other nonfiction works. Whether or not the historians retell facts or construct their own version of history is debatable. History can be percieved as being “constructed” by the historians due to their bias, elimination of controversy, strive for entertainment, and neglect to update the information.
Everyone today is evolved in today’s history, and will pass down the many stories that shape the world for incoming generations. Moreover, everyone has a different perspective on events that happen in the past and present, which creates differing stories and overlapping similarities. Our history is gathered from historians who provide facts and stories of relevant or important characters, issues, or events through details that differ from groups and cultures portrayed during that time. This can be seen in Herodotus’s The Histories (Book Seven). Although Herodotus is the first historian, his takes relevant and important information in an overly-detailed and story-like style of telling history.
I may conclude my discussion by saying that both historian’s and human scientist’s tasks are to some extent similar because they all try to understand its area of knowledge. They also wish for the changes in the future, but however, historian does not concretely do this but he only provides the knowledge. The person that obtains the knowledge is the one that may conclude to change the future. History and human sciences also both deal with bias when providing knowledge and may therefore not be as reliable as they should be.
“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” The pursuit of any given knowledge may or may not change over time if contradictions are stated and proved. While looking at the pursuit of knowledge, the perception that focalizes on the specific subject can be seen as reliable or unreliable due to bias or reason. Knowledge is also different in different fields of study. The use of reason will define certain things for an eternity, while others are made out of emotion. The time period of the relating to the acquiring of the “modern” knowledge could impact the resolution, appointing the fact that history has its own way of forming new concepts to old ideas. In connection to the history aspect, the perception of ideas during that time period will affect future references to the said concept.
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).
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.
Learning about history helps us learn about the humanities own reflection and what’s good or bad about it. This is just like a diary , people and by people I mean historians , just wrote what they saw and what seemed to cause a major change in society and we just happen to be reading it a couple of years later. I believe that historians actually wrote historical truth because it makes sense and it has been scientifically proven