Use of qualitative data.
Mid-section 3
Describe uses of inductive and deductive knowledge used in these knowledge areas.
The fact that sometimes science is used to prove historic facts and aid in the explanation process is relevant. E.g.: The use of Carbon14 (Cu14) to find the exact date of an old material which is supposedly dated from the 1800´s.
Conclusion
Synthesize all said previously focusing mostly on the most important point. The conclusion will be more easily written once the body of the essay is complete.
Main points:
- Integration deductive and inductive method in science and history
- Reasoning in history is made up of hypothesis
- Science being exact
Final Essay
What similarities and differences are there between historical and scientific explanations?
This question has taunted philosopher`s minds in recent years. Before appointing the similarities and differences between these knowledge areas, we must understand specifically what each of them mean. The definition of the word “science” is: “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” This definition shows us that the sciences rely on factual proof and evidence to be considered valid, there are no estimations allowed. Science must be exact. The definition of the word “history” is: “1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events, usually written as a chronological account;” History has the aim of accounting for past events without being biased, but it is difficult of assuring its veracity if there aren`t eye witnesses. Science aims to help us understand the world and its natural events by means of explanation and experimentation. The definition of the word “explanation” is: “1. a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable.” Now that the definitions have been presented, the similarities and differences between the methods used to explain the events in each of the both knowledge areas must be shown.
The most lucid divergence between science and history is that science must always be exact. There is no space for estimations in science, because it is a knowledge area that relies on accurate quantitative data. This data must support a hypothesis, and it must be confirmed by practical experimentation. History on the other hand may leave questions unanswered or give many unsure answers to one question, which in many cases creates enigmas. Modern historians can only obtain knowledge about past events if they have data explaining the happenings. Modern scientists can obtain knowledge from old discoveries and observe data from past events right before their eyes by means of experimentation. Historians are constantly using secondary data and carrying out desk research if they didn’t witness the event they are studying. Scientist can always use primary data when they carry out experiments. Both knowledge areas rely on perception, but perception is used in different ways. A historical event only genuinely happens once and this specific event cannot be replicated in the precise circumstances as the original occurrence. Scientists usually base their experiments on ones done in the past, but they can be simulated in the same way. Furthermore, historians will only ever obtain actual knowledge from a past piece of data if it is recovered. The veracity of such data cannot always be confirmed whereas scientists aim to find the veracity of facts and find ways to prove it.
Historical and scientific explanations have several similarities. It is of my belief that the main connection between them is the way in which they are conceived. In both knowledge areas, the explanations are composed by recording events what happens, yet to affirm that “to come up with either a historical or scientific explanation, you must record what happens” makes things seem much simpler than they really are. Let’s use history as an example. There isn’t always a reliable source to eyewitness important historic proceedings. We must consider that the accountancy of a happening cannot be made if there wasn’t anyone to witness it. To account for a happening and not be sure of its veracity, you must have different pieces of evidence and opinions which support its authenticity. This is most frequent in historical studies and somewhat inevitable to an extent. One way or another, history becomes subjective due to the lack of evidence and data presented to sustain a specific point. This becomes more evident when studying someone’s opinion and questioning their belief’s with a “why?” Hitler will be used as an example to prove a point. “Why did Hitler dislike Jews?” The answer to this question may remain irresolute forever; Hitler himself might have not even known the exact answer to it. The best a historian can do to answer this question is to merely come up with a range of suppositions which are backed up by plausible explanations to back it up. Some may say it was because of his Jewish father who mistreated him, or because of the Jewish doctor who couldn’t prevent his mother from dying. Maybe it was due to mental insanity and sheer devilishness, wanting to create pain and suffering to others for no reason. One particular answer to this question will never be enough to confirm Hitler’s hatred toward the Jewish people because there is lacking evidence to confirm so. First hand data would be the best way to settle this matter. Perhaps an interview and psychoanalysis with Mr. Adolf Hitler would suffice. One thing is certain, for now true answer to this question won’t ever be exact because the correct answer is unknown. Historians have the power to change what people think. It can be said that "historians observe and analyze data that cannot be altered"; however, to what degree does that data, in fact, get altered based on the various interpretations of that data? A scientist may remove a decimal point; the historian may moves a few thousand people murdered. To what extent do we know that what we are learning is actually true?
History is also constantly changing even though science isn’t necessarily, but perception may change as science makes new discoveries, thus changing history. A scientific formula doesn’t change because the nature of the world is something constant, unlike history. History is changing every day, yet the course of history can be changed by the development of new technologies. An example of this is the use of steroids. Steroids were developed in the early 50’s in the United States of America. Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter was stripped of his gold medal in the 100 meter sprint in the 1988 Olympics because he was tested positive for stanozolol, an anabolic steroid in the drug screening test. Because of steroids, a scientific innovation, a man was able to break, what at the time was still (because history changed), a world record, even though he did it in a sleazy way.
As time goes on, new historical evidence might be found related to an event in history. Things like this can potentially change points of view on a global scale. Imagine documents about negotiations from World War II between England and Germany are found where Germany proposes to England to authorize the Holocaust to carry on if Germany paid them X billion pounds, and Winston Churchill signed in agreement. We would turn away from the latter points of view (England stopped Germany in WWII and helped bring peace) and take on new ones (perhaps that Winston Churchill was an immoral man). Furthermore, historians will only ever obtain actual knowledge from a past piece of data if it is recovered. The veracity of such data cannot always be confirmed whereas scientists deal with evidence and data that is right before their eyes by use of experimentations. (e.g.: Turin shroud)
Science and History do cross paths more frequently than thought though. Both resort to giving different points of view when lacking evidence. Science does this to explain the Big Bang theory for example. Nobody was actually there to see what happened and if it was true or not, but scientifically speaking, it was the most plausible thing that could have happened, therefore the scientific knowledge previously acquired was used to back up this theory.
I think the key difference between history and science is that a scientific experiment can be recreated whereas history can only be experienced once. When writing a lab report for science, it is important to show the procedure clearly so that other people can base their experiments on yours, and recreate the same results- this sets science apart from time. History is confined to the past. It can never be recreated and it can only be experienced once. I believe that the boundary separating science from history is that instead of relying on what others experienced in the past and told us about is less precise and less impacting than a discovery that can be tested and reconstructed in the present.
