Which is the more important attribute of the historian: the ability to analyse evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
Cristina Valencia
2th grade
Theory of Knowledge
Murray Thomas
Which is the more important attribute of the historian: the ability to analyse evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
The main aim of a historian is to issue knowledge and information from the past. The word history is portrayed as a recollection of evidence from ancient times. This evidence has helped people to deduce and build up ethical historic events that took place centuries ago. Nevertheless, the analysis of evidence and knowledge a historian undergoes is extremely subjective, and its significance is of great importance. The information conveyed in this historic knowledge can be used by other people to interpret facts from the past. Here, we can see a clear contrast between the History Area of Knowledge and the Art-Science Area of Knowledge. The desire to publish conclusions of the historical evidence is something that all historians share when it comes to analyzing facts. Despite the resemblance between methodologies, the one that deals with scientifical analysis is quite different from the artistic interpretation.
Historians, have the tendency to present their findings with a detailed description, the causes, and the consequences. Thus, for a historian to reach this, they have to be dominant and strong when it comes to develop interpretations. On the other hand, the recent improvement and development of technology has hindered historians to analyze the evidence in a more scientific way. Furthermore, these technological developments have shifted the old ways of analyzing facts to the new way, which provides an easier access to facts, figures, graphs and calculations. Before the improvement of technology, it took historians an extended period of time to deduce and explain a graph or to explain a key fact. If a historian is to analyse evidence scientifically, it is clear that a conflict with induction will arise, as the methodology of science involves explanation, deduction and prediction, which portrays the scientific method as lacking accuracy. Furthermore, there are some advantages to the method such as self correction and experimentation.
2th grade
Theory of Knowledge
Murray Thomas
Which is the more important attribute of the historian: the ability to analyse evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
The main aim of a historian is to issue knowledge and information from the past. The word history is portrayed as a recollection of evidence from ancient times. This evidence has helped people to deduce and build up ethical historic events that took place centuries ago. Nevertheless, the analysis of evidence and knowledge a historian undergoes is extremely subjective, and its significance is of great importance. The information conveyed in this historic knowledge can be used by other people to interpret facts from the past. Here, we can see a clear contrast between the History Area of Knowledge and the Art-Science Area of Knowledge. The desire to publish conclusions of the historical evidence is something that all historians share when it comes to analyzing facts. Despite the resemblance between methodologies, the one that deals with scientifical analysis is quite different from the artistic interpretation.
Historians, have the tendency to present their findings with a detailed description, the causes, and the consequences. Thus, for a historian to reach this, they have to be dominant and strong when it comes to develop interpretations. On the other hand, the recent improvement and development of technology has hindered historians to analyze the evidence in a more scientific way. Furthermore, these technological developments have shifted the old ways of analyzing facts to the new way, which provides an easier access to facts, figures, graphs and calculations. Before the improvement of technology, it took historians an extended period of time to deduce and explain a graph or to explain a key fact. If a historian is to analyse evidence scientifically, it is clear that a conflict with induction will arise, as the methodology of science involves explanation, deduction and prediction, which portrays the scientific method as lacking accuracy. Furthermore, there are some advantages to the method such as self correction and experimentation.