Why do We Need to Learn About History

1343 Words3 Pages

A historian is someone that studies a series of events in order to create a reconstruction of the past to be able to explain the present and speculate about the future. In contrast, a human scientist interprets said events which are associated with human beings. To approach the prescribed chosen essay title I will focus on, one main knowledge issue and others that will arise from it: To what extent is the purpose of historians or human scientists to have an impact on the way in which the community we live in behaves? While looking at history, psychology, reason, sense perception and emotion, we will see that history isn’t necessarily the study of the past and that human scientists are not necessarily looking to change the future.

In order to determine the purpose of human scientists, we should analyze whether the purpose of history is linked to the purpose of science or not. Despite the fact that both history and the human sciences use reason as a way of knowing, it is a common assumption that any type of science is a more reliable source. On the other hand, history is said to be less reliable as the memory is said to be fallible and evidence is ambiguous, and on many occasions it is said to rely on observation, which can be an error depending on different sense perceptions of the events witnessed. For example, let’s say we discover Stonehenge. From a distance of 5m you state that there is clear evidence that it had originally been transported by people to the place it now is because of the marks it has. However, my myopia tells me that there is no evidence, as I see everything blurred out. This example clearly shows why the human eye is not reliable, as myopia, for example, is common amongst society. On the other hand, human sci...

... middle of paper ...

...ural sciences advances in order to carry out investigations, as the materials and resources used may sometimes be the same for both. However, it can change our futures to some extent, as human scientists keep improving their theories and undertake experiments or studies to prove them.

In conclusion, whether we believe the statement “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” is true or not depends on our sense perception and on how we interpret it. I personally think the statement is not true as, despite their methodologies, both historians and human scientists want to see society develop and evolve. History is needed to understand the past, explain the present and change the future, while human sciences have to explain the past in order to understand the present and then change the future.

Open Document