Evidence is a key word in the question but what people do with the evidences is even more important. Evidences do not speak for themselves and are only valuable when people use them. Using evidence, people can use scientific method to falsify previously established theses which would require the ability to analyse evidence scientifically, such maybe for example when the anti-Semitism originated from. It was once believed it was at his very young age yet later historians find out evidence about this one girl and through analysing scientifically, they found the girl to be a Jewish called Stephanie Issak. At the same time, people can also use the evidence as the ground to establish new theses which would require the ability to develop interpretation of evidence of evidence using creative imagination. However, my opinion is that everyone is able to establish new theses (whether evidence can provide ground or not) just like telling stories; yet specific techniques and skills are required to analyse the evidence scientifically (the same reason why we give a special noun “scientists” to people who uses scientific methods), so, the people who possess these techniques and skills are called “historians”.
Of course, I am not saying historians cannot possess the ability to develop interpretation of evidence using creative imagination; but to be called an historian, one must possess those particular skills which would disguise them from people who are interested in history. For example, Mr A who study into sources and try to figure out what theses is true to him is a historian; Mr B who is interested in history and perhaps read history books yet accept them as truth completely is a person who is interested in history, but not a historian. This can also be implied that people who are interested in history may treat History as a really complex and long story, as entertainment, then, the aim of history will be different again. In extreme cases, to some people, the aim of history is solely to provide leisure time activity as those people may expect, then, the ability to analyse evidence scientifically will be completely futile. That means Dan Brown can be a historian if he wants for those people, all he has to do is move his books from the “fiction novel” shelf to “history” shelf. Yet, I think this does not support why people first start with the word history, yet those people can think like that if they want to.
However, cultural difference can make people’s response to this question different. If the cultural difference is that the view on the aim of history or even history itself is not the same, then historians are expected to do different things which will mean different ability is needed. For example, the Japanese who are shameful of its malicious and sinful history which shows their evil nature do not wish to accept history as the study of really what happened. Rather they wanted a “story” which would make them feel better about killing millions of innocent people (i.e. aim being making their people patriotic). Therefore, in that case, they would need historians who have so much creative imagination that they can possibly make up any sort of theses which can cover up their evil past and nature. This shows that cultural difference will lead to difference in views of the value of the two respective abilities.
There are also other problems with the ability to develop interpretation of evidence using creative imagination. They include bias adding while using the evidence, starting to investigate an imaginary scenario which is not fact, etc. If historians did depend on creative imagination, they would perceive what they imagined as truth and hence interpreting the evidence in favour of what they imagine, or even use the evidence as proof to something which it cannot prove (i.e. misusing the evidence). Also, if historians really believe in what they imagine, they may try to prove something which has absolutely no ground or validity in it. This can be someone trying to prove that Hitler killed dogs in concentration camp as well while in fact, he loves dogs. This will lead to fruitless work of the historians (i.e. digging in the wrong place). Again, these support my argument that the ability to develop interpretation of evidence using creative imagination is not that particularly important, that it can only act as an addition for part of occasional surprising breakthrough (i.e. random imagination leads a historian to actually dig in the correct place).
Even though, some may argue that creative imagination is quite important when it comes to the process which causes and effects are found, especially when it is difficult to use physical evidence to prove such as exactly why Hitler was so anti-Semitic. Creative imagination can lead us to link the deep-seated anti-Semitism in Christianity and European culture, then figures or vote polls may show that by being anti-Semitic, Hitler gain support. This means that would still require the ability to analyse evidence scientifically. I also believe the process can still be done without creative imagination. It may take longer but Psychologists may find that Hitler’s mindset has certain special qualities and then the Historians can try to prove or disprove what the Psychologists say. I mean, it is irrational to leave whole of the Past to historians while we have tens of natural sciences and social science to due with the Present. Historian’s job should only be proving or disproving, just like scientists on a different area of knowledge.
After all, as I mentioned before, my expectation for history is to try to find facts which are true. I also agree with Mr Dawkins’ view that nothing, not even my own imagination, can convince myself about anything being wholly true, yet science can convince me that at least by far it has not been proved wrong and that many people are trying to prove theses wrong making it quite easy and quick to expose those wrong theses established.
In conclusion, I think the ability to analyse evidence scientifically is more important than the ability to develop interpretation of evidence using creative imagination. It is because the ability to analyse evidence scientifically is relatively more pragmatic, creative imagination may sometimes be required in history not historians, creative imagination is also unpredictable, unexplainable and unreliable. However at the same time, I do recognise creative imagination may come handy occasionally and that views and values are affected by cultural difference.
Word count: 1331