Scientific and Historical Explanations for the Foundation of Humanity - Essay Example

Introduction Human being is a rational being. He has the ability to think, to reason and to reach a conclusion in a logical way. At the same time, some occurrences in human life are such that they cannot be explained logically. Topics like God, miracles, visions and ‘out of body’ experiences are always laughed at by the scientists. Scientists believe that for something to be called as ‘real’, it has to pass different criteria set by science (Kantorovich 213). If a particular experience does not pass the established criteria of science, then it is rejected by scientists as figment of an imagination of the person who experiences it. Hence, scientists usually refuse to work in collaboration with historians and philosophers (Keller 2615). However, scientists should understand that the even though way they work and the way people from philosophy and historical field work are different, it does not mean that historians are wrong. Historians and philosophers use their creativity to reach conclusions. However, their creativity is based on the facts they have studied from the fragments available from the past and not based on the imagination. Even though their methods are different, their intention is one and that is to bring the truth in front of the world and let them know how things work. Hence, even though there are some similarities in the way the scientists and the historians work, there also are some differences and these differences make life a beautiful place to live. Differences between the historians and scientists Aim of theory The theories developed by scientists have an intention of predicting a particular phenomenon (Peters 147). Their theories are developed to describe the functioning of a chosen subject in a scientific way. Scientists insist that the theories they develop are based on minute observation of the way the subject functions and hence, are able to predict the behavior of the subject in the future. According to Popper, a theory which tried to explain a phenomenon should also be able to tell how the phenomenon will function in the future (Peters 147). On the other hand, the theories developed by historians are not aimed at predating anything (Peters 147). The theories developed by historians aim at understanding the developmental stages of the event or an entity from the past (Peters 147). For example, their theories try to explain how people in ancient ages used to collect food, how they used to make clothes without machineries, what tools they used to fight animals etc. They are interested in understanding how the inhabitants lived their life in the past. Hence, historians try to explain how life was in the past. As their theories are meant to explain the life in the past, there is no element of prediction in their theories. In this way, the difference between the historian and the scientific explanations is in their aim of the explanations. The factor of universality Historical explanations are always bound by time and space (Peters 150). The laws of history are not applicable to everyone and at every time. Historians study the events of the past, study the time period when they have occurred, arrange them in the chronological order and find the association between them (Hull 70). The explanations that historians give are strong because they are based on the study of historical events as they have occurred and developed through years (Hull 70). People find coherence and continuous development of the historical entities in the historical explanations (Hull 70). As historical explanations are based on the study of the past events and are related to the lives of people belonging to different civilizations in the past, it does not have the quality of universality. The scientific theories are universal. The scientific explanations do not depend on the time and space. They are universal in nature, i.e. they are applicable everywhere and every time provided the conditions are same (Peters 150). Empirical study Historians have a tendency to study the past events and on the basis of the past events, predict the future events. This is known as the empirical way of explaining things. For e.g. they observe that in the past, when a certain tribe or certain race was repressed, it had resulted in revolution. This study of the past events make them to state that if people are oppressed, then they revolt against the oppression and this creates a civil unrest (Peters 150). Their prediction is based on the basis of the observation of the human history. They observe that certain social conditions have led to occurrence of certain events in the past and the trend of these occurrences was seen to be repeated. Hence, on the basis of the trends of events and conditions in the history of humanity, the historians try to understand how the future will be. They believe that if people have behaved in a certain way in a certain situation in the past, then they are likely to repeat their behavior pattern if those circumstances arise again. According to Hempel (1965), historians are more interested in studying and describing the events of the past rather than trying to understand the general laws that might have governed those events (Hull 69). Scientific explanations are not based on the events that have occurred in past. Their explanation is based on the occurrence of a particular thing in the present. Their study is not empirical in nature. The explanations by scientists are based on the studies and experiments they have conducted in the ‘present’. The scientists think that if a certain thing has happened in the past, then it doesn’t mean that it will happen in the future. If one is to be sure about the repetition of the event, then one has to study it in laboratory conditions or with scientific tools. Scientists believe that if certain deduction cannot be drawn from the empirical data available, then the data if of no use. Hempel dismisses the historical explanations saying that they are “mere sketches and accounts from the past” as they cannot be explained with the aid of general laws (Hull 69). The Repetitive quality The events or the entities that historians explain cannot be repeated in the present life. They cannot be experienced or ‘sensed’ by people living in the present. The reason is that the historical explanations are based on the data and the fragments from the past (Hull 71). They cannot be recreated in the laboratory. Take for example the historical explanations about the creation of the pyramids in Egypt. The creation of the pyramids is still a mystery for modern day architects and scientists (Alford 22). The historians have tried to explain the creation of pyramids after studying the symbols of religion, drawings on the walls, clear and precise writings about the rituals and study of the beliefs of people living in the age when the pyramids were built (Alford 22). However, if you ask the historians to explain the phenomenon of creation of pyramids by building one more pyramids, then it is impossible for them to do that. It is because historical explanations are based not only on the study of concrete evidence from the past like ancient palaces, ancient scriptures, ancient clothes and accessories, but are also based on the beliefs, practices, rituals, religions, languages and cults followed by people living in those ages. Even though the data about the human behavior is available in abundance, one cannot guarantee that humans will behave in exact same manner as they behaved in the past, although a repetitive trend has been observed (Hull 71). Hence, the historians cannot repeat the events or the entities they describe in their explanation. Saying that historical explanations will be believed only if historians are able to repeat the events from past is an unfair thing to do. Historians won’t be able to create the phenomenon from the past because they cannot create the civilizations which led to the phenomenon in the past. Scientific explanations can be repeated because they are not based on the events in the past but are based on the studies conducted in the laboratory or under ‘controlled’ situations. For example, if a scientist is asked to explain the laws of motion, it won’t be difficult for him to create an experimental set up where “he can roll the balls down inclined planes”(Hull 71). As the scientific explanations are mostly about non-living things, the elements involved in the explanation have constant nature. Hence, scientists do not have to worry about the ‘psychology’ or the ‘emotions’ of the elements involved in their explanations as the historians. As the subjects involved in scientific explanations are non-living things, it becomes easy for scientists to repeat the explanation any number of times. Tools for explanation The tools available for the historians to explain their theories are nothing but the fragment of things from the past. Things like scriptures, written accounts, symbols, houses, weapons, clothing, utensils, monuments, fossils etc., are the tools that work as evidence in the historical explanations. After studying these materials from the past and relating them to the lifestyle of people living in the age when those materials existed, the historians draw inferences and form their explanations. Hence, Collingwood (1946) assumed that “history is not simply a matter of classifying events in chronological order, but a cognitive activity in which logical inferences are commonly used” (Carretero et al 363). The tools used by scientists are the sophisticated modern machines and laboratory instruments. These tools help them to conduct their experiments or the study in any part of the world. They are not restricted to a particular place as the historians are. If an historian has to study the pyramids, then he has to go to the place where pyramids are and study them. He cannot lift the pyramids, bring it in the laboratory and study them. Hence, historians have a restriction of place. Scientists can create a laboratory anywhere by moving the instruments and the subjects to be studied, from one place to other. Moreover, the tools used by scientists get better and better with the development of the technology. They make the job of the scientists easier and increase the efficiency of the experiments. On the other hand, the tools used by historians get older and older by every passing day. Conclusion The methods used for scientific and historical explanations are very different from each other. It can be seen that even though historical explanations cannot be proved in a ‘controlled’ laboratory conditions, they are in no way inferior to scientific explanations. They are based on a systematic and logical study of traces from the past. While historical explanations aim at understanding the foundation of the humanity and knowing how we have reached where we have reached today, the scientific explanations aim at understanding where and how we can move forward in the future. The only similarity between the both is that they deal with potential of a human being and understanding what we are capable of achieving. The historians try to do it by bringing alive the heroic historical achievements of humanity in the past while the scientists do it by showing it through experiments and inventions. Works cited Alford, Alan, F. Pyramid of Secrets: The Architecture of the Great Pyramid Reconsidered in the light of creational mythology. Walsall, UK: Eridu Books, 2003. Print. Carretero, Mario et al. “Historical knowledge: Cognitive and instructional Implications”. Cognitive and instructional Processes in history and the social sciences. Ed. Mario Carretero and James Voss. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1994. Print. Hull, David. “The Particular-Circumstance Model of Scientific Explanation”. History and evolution. Ed.Matthew Nitecki and Doris Nitecki. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Print. Kantorovich, Aharon. Scientific discovery: Logic and tinkering. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Print. Keller, Evelyn. “Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Biology.” PLoS Biology 6.12 (2008): 2615. Print. Peters, Robert.H. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print. Read More