What is the most important asset of the historian: the ability to analyze evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
What is the most important asset of the historian: the ability to analyze evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
The human science of history very much differs from the other human sciences studied in theory of knowledge. History is the only social science that is solely based on facts from the past while Geography, Psychology and others are more dependent on the future. Other areas of research like science are also solely based on creating new knowledge that might eventually turn into history. Historians have to evaluate every piece of evidence they get based on principles of bias, time of creation and who created it. Now one has to see whether the ability to analyze evidence scientifically is more vital to an historian as the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination. To analyze this in a way adequate for theory of knowledge one has to consider how the ways of knowing coincide with history and then see which of the two abilities is more useful to an historian. In this piece of writing I will debate on the basis of why the ability to analyze evidence scientifically is so much more important compared to the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination. The use of creative imagination allows the historian to perhaps alter the information if wrongly interpreted in a way that contradicts the original meaning of the piece of history. In history the way of knowing of language is essential for historic facts to have been passed down from generation to generation. History is nothing if it isn’t talked about. A historian only has the opportunity to analyze a piece of history if it comes to him and therefore language is vital to the historian. Also can one say that the way history is passed on, in written or oral form is the way it is going to be seen by the people to who it comes. This was seen very early on in history during the time of
The human science of history very much differs from the other human sciences studied in theory of knowledge. History is the only social science that is solely based on facts from the past while Geography, Psychology and others are more dependent on the future. Other areas of research like science are also solely based on creating new knowledge that might eventually turn into history. Historians have to evaluate every piece of evidence they get based on principles of bias, time of creation and who created it. Now one has to see whether the ability to analyze evidence scientifically is more vital to an historian as the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination. To analyze this in a way adequate for theory of knowledge one has to consider how the ways of knowing coincide with history and then see which of the two abilities is more useful to an historian. In this piece of writing I will debate on the basis of why the ability to analyze evidence scientifically is so much more important compared to the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination. The use of creative imagination allows the historian to perhaps alter the information if wrongly interpreted in a way that contradicts the original meaning of the piece of history. In history the way of knowing of language is essential for historic facts to have been passed down from generation to generation. History is nothing if it isn’t talked about. A historian only has the opportunity to analyze a piece of history if it comes to him and therefore language is vital to the historian. Also can one say that the way history is passed on, in written or oral form is the way it is going to be seen by the people to who it comes. This was seen very early on in history during the time of