The Contrasting Roles of Historians and Scientists Essay

This paper deals with ways history can be interpreted and influences different interpretations have on society and individuals. This is explored through

Eley writes it, the longing “for theoretical purity or some finality of resolution” had decreased among historians. As such, historians debate the use of “historical theories” and these debates tend to be “more focused [on] and concrete historical projects” and how they develop. Overall, Eley argues that theory is relevant in the study of social history and that it is important in our ability to record and understand the events of the past. He recognizes that theory argues in the present-tense, but sees “the lasting outcomes for historians materialized behind these more visible and sometimes grandstanding polemics, as the more focused and concrete historical projects gradually took shape” with the “ultimate payoff” being “the actual histories they

In Jamaica Kincaid’s essay, In History, she describes the idea that when history is put into a “one size fits all” perspective, it is immediately inaccurate from someone else’s perspective. People are actively contributing to their own ignorance when it comes to history by blindly accepting

She carries the audience through her argument in a logical sequence. First, she makes her claim that student do not know history and explains her reasons (250). She then elaborates on what history students are taught and what exactly is wrong with the methods by which they learn (251). After this, she explains the job of a historian to the reader – how historians confront primary sources to “make some sense of what once happened” (252). To end the article, Simon describes how students can better learn history through exploring primary sources (253). This structuring and organization helps the reader to understand and to believe Simon’s

In Telling the Truth About History, three historians discuss how the expanded skepticism and the position that relativism has reduced our capacity to really know and to expound on the past. The book talks about the written work of history and how individuals are battling with the issues of what is “truth.” It likewise examines the post-modernist development and how future historians

Is history always the way it has been told, or are there multiple truths that meet in one point and intersect? Presentism is what modern historians do to the past. The way in which presentism reveals and formats information about history is simplified and modified. This, for the most part, is not the exact way these events took place. Important parts and concepts are changed in order to fit into modern views and interpretation. Many historians are accepting of either the victim's or perpetrator's side. Sometimes picking one particular side may skew the hard facts of the situation or event. Failure of telling the accurate past can lead

As the hostility grows between both parties, historians must consider the factual disposition of their writings. Empiricist J.B. Bury stated that history is a “science, nothing more, nothing less”. The accurate connotations that science brings highlights the academics arguments. Although not completely a science, history integrates different forms of science, such as geology, in order to reach the objective truth (Evans). It is the assertion of history as a science to which academics believe their history is presented. To which, academic’s believe their rival’s representation of history is inaccurate, and therefore invalid. Academic historians insistence to their own superiority may contend to their tension between

Historians, as we normally perceive bear the responsibility as scholars who record and research about past events and compiled them together in order to benefit the future generations as an authoritative channel for them to understand and study the past of human kind. Nevertheless, these missions were hardly the main

Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the

To know the past is to know the future. In his essay Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are, David McCullough argues about the importance of studying and teaching history. In his essay, he explains that there are three main points about history: character and its effect upon destiny, our failure of teaching the future generation, and the importance of learning and listening to history. David McCullough strongly advocates that audience should start to listen to and teach about the past in order to learn about the way a person’s character can affect their destiny.

To Howard Zinn, history is no more than a looking glass for historians to see what needs to change in the modern world. Zinn explains how historians should see the past and the future in his 1966 essay “Historian as Citizen”. He begins by stating that historians cling too tightly to the patterns of the past and are wrong in using them as a guide to the future. He says, “This necessariness of the past tends to infect our thinking about the future, weighing down our disposition to act” (Zinn 44). Already, Zinn makes a broad statement that counters the aged ways of historians everywhere. He is asking them to let go of history. This is offputting to some but it is his strong voice that makes his philosophy so grand.

Historians believe they need to find the truth. They make arguments, write papers, and give lecture on what they are saying is the truth. Historians want to learn what happened. This is important, because history teaches many lessons. Students of history agree or disagree with historian's arguments and what they say happened or what is the cause of some event.

This text analyses the complexities in writing and interpreting history. Mark Damon claims that historians encompass at least three different ways of accessing the past; remembering, recovering, or inventing. The texts states that no history is the full unvarnished truth and that memory is usually what many must result to, making the facts potentially flawed. It also discusses how evidence and artifacts aren’t complete without context and some historians result to fabricating the story behind it. Throughout the text it glances at two very different historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Byzantine Procopius, and shows the range and difficulty inherent in the study of the past.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same," (Alphonse Karr). This quote can be applied precisely to history. From the Era of Foragers to the Agrarian Era, to our Modern times, our gift to organize, communicate, destroy, and create had in many ways altered and also remain the same. Therefore, we can now gaze back and genuinely see how much things had already differed, and we can, in addition, detect how plenty of things have also remained the same. Additionally, some things that will almost certainly invariably be the same are our ethnic group’s ability to be scientifically gifted.

What is History? This is the question posed by historian E.H. Carr in his study of historiography. Carr debates the ongoing argument which historians have challenged for years, on the possibility that history could be neutral. In his book he discusses the link between historical facts and the historians themselves. Carr argues that history cannot be objective or unbiased, as for it to become history, knowledge of the past has been processed by the historian through interpretation and evaluation. He argues that it is the necessary interpretations which mean personal biases whether intentional or not, define what we see as history. A main point of the chapter is that historians select the facts they think are significant which ultimately