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 creative imagination of an artist plays an important role for a historian when it comes to analyzing evidence. An example of this is the analysis of images as primary sources, will generate the artist several enquiry's which will lead him to gain historical proof. Take this image as an example,

If the historian were to analyze this source in an artistic way, he will wonder where the setting, time or the place were it was created, as well as the relevancy and importance of the image. These important questions can divulge a full amount of information which would have been hard to deduce if the historian would have analyzed it scientifically.

There are many other ways where we can see a clear contrast between analyzing things scientifically and analyzing by using creative imagination such as music masterpieces, lyrics and scientific research.

For Historians, it is important to rely on primary sources such as museums, libraries, galleries etc. Historians base their information on primary sources, because any other information (secondary sources) might have been analyzed by a professor or a historian itself. This highlights how the analysis of historical evidence and research is not 100% reliable, as it involves checking the validity of the sources in order to come to a conclusion. The rectification of the information brings validity as well as the reduction of problems of knowledge they might have in their conclusions.

There are distinct problems historians encounter when they search for information and evidence, the main one is bias. Bias is a big problem as it lowers the capacity of reliability and it generates people's disagreements towards it. This bias relates to an area of knowledge, in this case "Reason". This influences the historian to present his or her conclusions in an unbiased manner; this will help people to understand both sides of the conclusion. In the Area of Knowledge of Science and History, there is a clear link between logic and reason; however this link does not exist in the Arts. The analysis of evidence through the process of interpretation makes this particular method not only misleading but in many ways link to distinct ways of knowing, one of them being emotion. Interpretations can be misleading as the conclusion of a historian can be influenced by distinct factors, an example of this is cultural awareness. Culture does not influence the interpretations of evidence when using the scientific method, as this method is quite objective. This shows that in order to deduce a historical fact, all cultures must agree with it. Still, emotion in TOK is considered highly subjective as it cannot be proven by anyone else but yourself. Furthermore, both creative imagination and emotion link with each other, this will shows that Emotion is a problem for historians how have better attributes on creative imagination rather than the scientific method.

After looking at both attributes that a historian can obtain, I believe that the union of both scientific analysis and creative imagination is what makes a historian. In my opinion, both science and art link with each other. As an example of this there is the analysis of a portfolio. This portfolio is quite subjective, as it states precisely its point. If a historian were to analyze this portfolio, he will require both the creative imagination and the scientific method, because as said before, creative imagination is quite subjective and a narrow topic is needed in order to form a generalization.

In addition to this, there are many other areas of study in which the scientific method intersects with the creative imagination, one of these is archaeology. The main requisite for archaeology is planning and expressing interpretations and ideas that will later develop to become research. Certainly, there must be creative imagination when it comes to analyzing the archaeological data, however, there is a need to understand scientific analysis of this data, as it might involve chemical elements of fossils.

In history, we have seen how historians don't lean towards either of the attributes, but they used them both in order to come up with a more solid conclusion, as an example of this there was a well known scientist called Copernicus, that said " the earth moves around the sun, not vice versa", in order to reach this hypothesis he had to use both scientific analysis and develop his creative interpretation.

Consequently, I can conclude that neither the ability to analyze scientifically nor the ability to develop interpretations is the single most important attribute of a historian, it's the link between both of them that aids the historian to form high-quality and reliable conclusions. When it comes to research an analysis people tend to look only at the scientific or mathematical method of doing things, without giving scope for interpretations. Although this is the method usually preferred by the historians, they are still not capable to proof and demonstrate their conclusions to all the humanity, as this will only be understood by scientists and historians themselves. When developing the scientific findings, it is a historians duty to use its interpretation in order to translate it to an idea that will be accepted and understood by all of humanity. It is key for a historian to have both of these attributes, as they will be enlightened in both ways, they will also have the capability to look at their evidence through different viewpoints, this will help him not only to formulate conclusions from the evidence from a scientific or artistic manner, but also in a personal, emotional and logical way. Only by reaching this point can a historian truly analyze the evidence in the most efficient and reliable way. Furthermore it is when a historian achieves this that he or she can be satisfied as they have shown that an incident from the past took place in that time, this will be considered by humanity "history".