What similarities and differences are there between historical and scientific explanations?

Perception can be defined as Perception plays a major role as a “way of knowing” for historiographers because each historiographer is different and will have had different experiences in life which would lead them to different conclusions, this means that the way they would perceive situations would be different resulting in different explanations for the events that take place. For example if a Historian thinks that the ends justify the means then he might see Stalin’s five year plans as being good while another Historian who thinks that the ends don’t justify the means will perceive the 5 year plans as being wrong. Another prime example is the on-going debate concerning the causes of World War One. Multiple viewpoints or perceptions on the subject have appeared over time such the orthodox, revisionist and post-revisionist viewpoints. The way Scientists use perception as a way of knowing is very different from Historians because in a scientific experiment all the results is based on the facts and what they see; none of their personal evaluations or thoughts play a big part in explaining things like reactions of chemicals. This shows that Historians use perception as a way of knowing while Scientists do not. However, both historical and scientific explanations both try to achieve a neutral stance or un-biased approach on any topic they investigated. Hence, science and history both operate under the assumption that objectivity is a necessary component of any investigation, and that the results and data should be public. Both have similar rules and procedures for the constitution of evidence and the relative importance of different kinds of evidence.

From the gathering and analysis of observation, historical and scientific explanations both employ parallel methodologies to arrive at one final result. In a scientific explanation, inductivism and trial and error is used as a methodology. Inductivism consists of five key steps: observation, hypothesis, experiment, law and theory. Each time an experiment used to test observations is done for it to go from one step to another. In general, a good experiment will feature controllability, measurability and repeatability. None of these are present in historical explanation, as the past cannot be repeated to verify. If the experimental results confirm your hypothesis or observation, then a scientific law or explanation has been found. This is best defined by Jacob Bronowski (1908-74) “Science is a way of describing reality; it is therefore limited by the limits of observation, and it asserts nothing which is outside of observation” Therefore, a scientific explanation has to be both empirical and rationale. The great strength of science is that it is communal and self-correcting enterprise. Sooner or later the errors of one individual are likely to be corrected by someone else. A similar methodology is used for historical explanations, which uses primary and secondary sources and histliography as a methodology. A primary source is defined is one that is written by someone who was there at the time while a secondary source is later, second-handed account of what happened. For example, Julius Caesar’s (100-44 BCE) The Conquest of Gaul is a primary source because it is Caesar’s own account of the wars he fought. By contrast Edward Gibbon’s (1737-94) The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a secondary source written later in time. Both methodologies serve as justifications to any historical or scientifically explanations. Even though both are fundamentally different in their nature they both serve as evidence. For example, historical explanations through its nature and methodology are “selections of a selection”. Since primary sources are themselves a selective interpretations of events. Thus it is impossible to deal with an event in its entirety. Even though both scientific and historical explanations can evolve through time as more observations are made, scientific explanations remain more empirical to the latter. However, as with all explanations there exist inaccuracies with both scientific and historical explanations.

Even though fundamentally different from the area of knowledge they emanate, scientific and historical explanations both present the same problems when it comes to observation. The relevance of an observation to the event being investigated is closely linked with the selective nature of perception. Thus it is always possible that a factor that later turns out relevant has been overlooked at the time. For example, when doing an experiment in chemistry we do no take into account the number of people in the room but this affects temperature. Nonetheless, in history as greater information becomes available to the general public regarding an event, wider viewpoints will form (i.e.: Fritz Fischer and the causes of world war one). Similarly, expectations can influence what we observe. Historians and scientists will jump to immediate conclusions with evidence that confirms their beliefs and overlook the evidence that goes against them. Finally, in both historical and scientific explanations, the observe effect is present whenever attempting to clarify an event. Furthermore, problems of bias also exist with both types of explanations. As human being we are all different from one another and tend to perceive what will justify our beliefs and not those of others. No explanation can be completely true or a correct account events or factors, as someone else will always have a varying account.

In conclusion, historical and scientific explanations differ regarding their nature but they both emanate from observations. In addition, their purpose to both is to justify the beliefs of an individual regarding an event or factor. A scientific explanation will both be empirical and rational self-correcting itself through time whilst a historical explanation will only accommodate more viewpoints over time. Furthermore, they both present the similar methodologies to arrive at a theory or account of an event through the gathering of evidence. Finally, they are both subject to bias, observation problems and the scientists or historians’ background.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

• Lagemaat, Richard Van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.