In order to accurately assess and interpret history, the basis of investigation must be on finding the details of the past using multiple forms of analysis to construct one cohesive account. It is of utmost importance that the intent of discovering history, is in fact, uncovering what occurred in the past, not using history as a tool to support a belief or agenda. Furthermore, it is considerably important to approach the event from multiple different focus points, including but not limited to macro and micro economics, society as a whole and the individuals who form it, and cultural roles and customs. Finally, it is imperative to use the information gathered to craft one united description of the event in question. All of which are utilized …show more content…
History is, at its core, a science dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge concerning to the events that have shaped the world. Therefore, when one pursues history, their basis should be the pursuit of knowledge. The result of prioritizing historical knowledge, rather than searching for evidence to justify a doctrine, allows for an uncorrupt, authentic, investigation that is more likely to provide meaningful results. Consequently, if the pursuit of historical knowledge is not the center of investigation, the result is a product of the central investigation. This may not seem like an inherent problem, however, such actions reduce the importance of the actual history, and reduce its importance as secondary to to root cause of study. Such results are problematic as they are more a byproduct of confirmation bias, which is a form of logical fallacy thus rather avoided, than the actual pursuit of discovery. For this reason, it is quite important to enforce the sole purpose of discovery being a historical …show more content…
The, difference, however, from utilizing certain focus points to view history, and using history to look at certain dynamics, is that the former’s pursuit is still that of history, just using different tools to view it, while the latter uses history as a tool to look for non historical accounts. The events of life are a product of many interacting factors, many of which are important when looking to discover about past events. Some such factors include economics at the time, the roles both man and society play on each other, and the cultural influences and values. These factors not only help to better explain the events of history, but also give context to allow for more accurate assumptions on why certain events may have occurred, or reasons for why certain people may have behaved in a specific way. There also happens to be immensive value in looking into multiple angles, as each provides its own specific interpretation, and thus allows for a historian to put multiple pieces of the puzzle together. The result is like a tapestry woven together from many interlocking elements, creating an overall impressive and complex
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.
This investigation uses two sources frequently, the Encyclopædia Britannica and Alpha History. Both are accredited tools which concentrate on history of the world. These have provided much of the necessary information to complete this investigation.
“It [history] is like a river. From any vantage point, a river looks much the same day after day. But actually it is constantly flowing and changing…one day, when the banks are thoroughly weakened and the rains long and heavy, the river floods and bursts its banks, and may take a new course.” (Kay 1948)
The driving force of history is in the conflicts of social classes, the bourgeoisie and proletarians. The thriving relationships between different classes is what develops history. The struggles and hardship that the proletarians has
In his short article “World History as a Way of Thinking” Eric Lane Martin, “…argue[s] that the most important things the field of world history has to offer the researcher, teacher, student, and general public are the conceptual tools required for understanding complex global processes and problems.” Anyone who follows the evening news or shops at Wal-mart, has encountered the processes and problems Martin speaks of. Our modern society puts pressure on a variety of citizens to grapple with and attempt to understand issues on a scale that moves beyond the local and national. History has long been a tool utilized by scholars, politicians and citizens to help them put current day happenings into context. That context has allowed for a deeper understanding of the present day. In an era when the issues cross national and regional boundaries the need for a different scale of history has become apparent. World history has emerged as a relatively new discipline within academia that is attempting to provide the context for large-scale processes and problems. As the field has grown a variety of authors, some historians, some from other fields, have attempted to write a history of the world. With such a daunting task how can we define success? How can we analyze the history that provides a true global perspective on processes and problems we face? By taking Martin’s two key characteristics of world history, one, it is defined by the kinds of questions it asks and two, it is defined by the problem-solving techniques it uses, we can analyze texts purporting to be world history and access their utility in providing context for the global processes and problems we face today.
In The Houses of History, selected and introduced by Anna Green and Kathleen Troup, the different theories of the twentieth century are broken down and specifics are introduced about each theory. Historians use these theories to study certain aspects of history and to be able to compare two theories to each other and the problems each theory addresses must be identified. With all aspects of history having some sort of connection, it would be better to take a holistic approach to the history of different eras. As we first read in Arnold earlier in the semester, "History is above all else an argument (Arnold 13)." Therefore, to compare two theories of history, the argument must begin with the facts of the theory and what that theory is used for, and then argue where it might have flaws or not connect history together.
The investigation references Franz Boas’ theory of historical particularism. The definition of historical particularism is:
John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an “accurate” interpretation of the past ceases to exist because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a limited perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be “objective” is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona...
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” This famous quote from Edmund Burke is one that many of us are familiar with. In spite of this, many people disregard history, branding it as unimportant or irrelevant to modern-day situations. However, history is actually a quite important subject with a myriad of lessons to be learned for anybody to apply now and in the future. Additionally, history gives us much needed information about our past, keeping us from forgetting why our nations became the way they are. It allows us to draw parallels between modern events and past events to collect our best judgment and gives us the important knowledge of the origin of our modern world, giving extra credibility
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
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.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
1. The importance of the study of world history to me personally as an American is very significant because I hope to find a career where I will work with many diverse people and I not only want to know them, but I want to have an understanding of where they came from in order to associate with them better. Another reason is that an American can be from any culture from around the world. Americans aren’t any certain race or religion, so we have to understand our fellow citizens just as they need to understand us. I was in definite need of a course like this because before I started taking this class I had no idea of the simple concept of the different beliefs between Hinduism and Judaism. I had heard of the different religions vaguely in high school, but was never actually taught about them. I didn’t even know that Jews did not eat pig because they thought it was a descendant of the devil. If I weren’t to know that, somewhere down the road I might have offered one of my Jewish friends a ham sandwich and that would have been a very embarrassing situation.
This opens the possibilities for the historian to research and thus history can be considered as a ‘Human Science’ (Smith). The major difference between history and human science is the way in which the scientist uses tools while the historian uses facts and figures. Feyerabend explains that an allegory presented by the human scientist depends on egotism, ideals, and the perspective of other forms of knowledge, and is not enveloped by method, evidence, reason or argument (Anderson 259). There is a big debate about whether social science is actually a science. J.S.Mill believes that while we can justify and discover unpretentious regularities in the physical world, we can also explore the connections between actions and thoughts through Mill’s Method on causation (Salmon).