When a historian writes a history book, say on the Civil Rights movement, how does he go about writing this? His goal is to share all knowledge about the era through the medium of the writings. Probably, the historian will interview people who lived through the era and research different parts. He will look back to the past for knowledgeable information to write his book.
Say the writer is very young. He is only 25. He himself was not alive during the Civil Rights movement. Therefore, he did not first handedly experience the movement. Is he as positioned to give an account of the time period as someone else who has experienced it? On the surface of things, one may be quick to answer “no.” However, when one thinks about this, one might conclude that this young historian might be just as capable as and maybe even more so than a true witness to the event.
The writer has gotten all of his knowledge on the subject through research and interaction with actual people who bear witness to the Civil Rights era. If one who did experience the movement were to write his account, would it not sure be a biased viewpoint. If an old white man from Texas that was senator during the time period told his story, for sure it would be different than that of a woman that was a young and idealistic college student during the time. When an outsider takes the stories from all participants, he might be better prepared to tell a more accurate account. True that the young writer might be more biased to one’s viewpoint than another’s, as can be expected of anyone. But is it not true that his account can be more objective and critical, and thus overall more accurate?
One might argue that one who experienced something would most definitely be able to give a more accurate, more real history of an event. For example, a Vietnam war veteran who fought on the front might give a better account of what life was like for the average soldier. He would be able to give all the details. Yet, that would be just one aspect of the war. Other aspects from other people should be taken into account to. Also, someone who first handedly experiences something as traumatic as war is oftentimes psychologically unstable and cannot give a completely accurate version.
With relation to psychology and other human sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, psychiatry), all knowledge comes from the past as well. All of these human sciences are results of the study and experimentation of human behavior over time. One cannot just wake up one day and know all about human behavior. But, over time, one can study and analyze human behavior through careful and precise experimentation and observation.
For example, the development of the knowledge of learning disabilities has surely developed over time. Way back before the existence of learning disabilities in children was known, a child might have been labeled as merely “stupid” or “lazy” just because he could not learn in a regular classroom setting. Over time and observation of the circumstances of these “lazy” students, psychologists have noticed trends in these students’ behaviors that have led to the probability that there is more to it than what appears on the surface.
Soon, learning disorders are named and these “lazy” children are diagnosed with ADHD or some other disorder. The results show that some psychological imbalance is causing the lack of studying skills in school. Then measures can be taken to correct the problem. At one time, there may not have been a good solution for the problem. Then, over time, remedies were developed, like Ritilin, an addictive drug that in some cases have made the child completely dependant on the medication and often have some severe side effects. Now, the drug’s safety is being questioned, and scientists are coming up with seemingly safer, non-addictive alternatives. This information about learning disorders did not develop overnight. Through a lot of precise experimentation and research, people have gained knowledge about different human behaviors, of learning disorders and many other different trends. Anyone can open up a psychology book that contains loads of information that has developed overtime, from research and experiments from the past.
From another aspect of human sciences, economics, the past is used as a guideline for the future. Economists use information about human spending and saving habits, government policies, and market trends to develop principles and information that explains the economy. All of this information comes from what people have done in the past overtime. Economists then use this information to make predictions about the future of the economy and to make suggestions about what people should and should not do when money is an issue. True, this is a very useful human science that uses information from the past to develop knowledge. Yet, it cannot always be accurately used to predict the future; the reason for this is that although one can predict human behavior, it is always subject to change and cannot always be accurately anticipated.
As one can see, all knowledge comes from the past. There is no present. Time is always changing, causing all that is said and done to be in the past. Alternatively, one cannot gain knowledge from the future, for the future cannot be foreseen. In history and in the human sciences, all knowledge attained has come from careful experimentation, research, and analysis.
Word Count: 1166