History Is Primarily for Understanding the Past - Essay Example

Recently, President Obama found himself at the receiving end of an online onslaught after he made some comments regardingthe suitability of studying science and technology based course as opposed to art history (Horton). He claimed that a graduate would be more likely to benefit more form a degree in engineering than the one is art history. However, the president in a surprising show of humility hand wrote a letter to Ann a history professor and one of those in the forefront in criticizing him for his remarks, on the subject expressing regret for any offense taken. He nevertheless restated that he was speaking in respect to viability of engineering in the job market over art history not on which was the inherently “better” course of study. While this argument was amicably resolved, it brought to light an older dispute on how different the two subjects are, and what role exactly does each play in the general state of human affairs. One of the common suppositions derived from this argument is the statement suggesting, “The historian’s task is to understand the past while the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” The objective of this paper is to discuss the extent to which this thesis statement is true and this will be done through comparing and contrasting the various functional characteristics of each. History is essentially the study of retrospective events dating from as recently as the previous day to the ancient and antiquated eras. Scientists on the other hand try to understand and transform the world through technological and knowledge tools. Ideally, the statement is both correct and incorrect based on the argument one chooses to apply in the discourse; for one, how true is the assumption that history is primarily for understanding the past? Overtly this would appear to be true, since often historians study past events and concern themselves with investigating and confirming historical information through a variety of techniques including scientific ones such as Carbon dating (Kanazawa 351). For example, an archaeologist may start with a theory that the ancient Greeks and Celts interacted at some point in history, they will then try to prove this theory by carrying out empirical research into the evidence left by both civilization such as manuscripts pottery weapons or bronze work, etc, to show a connection. In addition, they may also seek to disapprove theories through studying historical documents and trying to discover inconsistencies in historical information by comparing and contrasting different accounts of history. At the end of the day, the historian tries to identify the major incidences and individuals in the course of human history and enquire into what caused them, when exactly they happened or existed, the effects they had on society and their application to contemporary situations. For example, after the Second World War, the Nazi party was rigorously studied with the intentions of coming up with answers about their motivation and historical injustices that may have been occasioned against the Jews by the party (Monaghan 16). This way, scholars and ordinary individuals interested in acquiring a correct and in-depth account of information on any subject or its influence and comparative impact in modern day will benefit from the services of works of a historian. By extension, a similar textbook explanation can be developed about scientists, their main role is to primarily identify problems and carry out research to come up with varies solutions to them through scientific methods. To advance human knowledge by study, exploration, statistical relationships, controlled experimentations while using the scientific methods. They may be asked to define scientific theories and then prove or disprove them they are also tasked with the disproval of superstation and employing logic within controlled parameters so as to come up with verifiable results that can be reproduced consistently. Most importantly, in the context of this paper, the scientist is an inventor and they are responsible for coming up with new technology and information through which human lives can be improved in posterity. In this sense scientist do actually change the future when Edward Jenner discovered the cure for smallpox, he radically changed the future events of humanity since if he had not; it is likely that the world population would have been greatly reduced by the plague. In addition, scientific developments in other areas such as technology change the future everyday by proving tools that make life easier such as the internet and the technological revolution. However, as previously mentioned, the assumption underlying the thesis of this paper is potentially flawed if examined from a critical and more incisive point of view given that it proposes that history is retrospective in its influences. History, just like science is very instrumental in determining the future; in a nutshell, one should understand that history can change the future by helping society understand the past and based their future actions on their past experience so as to make the future predictable and compressible. A cliché that unites the past and the future is the assertion that “those who forget their passed are doomed to relieve it”. Indeed, history serves as a means through which humanity derives lessons from antiquity and applies them to the future, had this not been the case, science and technology would never develop since they would have no background from which to reference (Pluta 214). Today, before one carries out an experiment of study, they first go through the historical records that exist on the subject and try to form a baseline from which to commence their research. In addition, it would be impossible to predict the future unless one had an clear understating of the past, for example after 9/11, the US government used past information about the suspected insurgents and the political motivation dating from the Gulf war to make predictions on whether or not they could expect such attacks in posterity. Through creating an understanding of retrospective events, humans are better placed to interpret current data and ultimately be prepared for future events. The impact of history in the future can further be underscored by the fact that no one lives long enough to make and learn from every mistake, as humans must learn how to better their lives though examining the lives and experiences of retrospective generations so as to learn from their mistakes and avoid reliving them. Finally, after establishing that science is useful in determining the future, they by extension this also apples to history because a large part of scientific research is history, before scientist for example can make a conclusion about a given phenomenon or object, they have to carry out in-depth historical studies and analysis as well as comparative studies. Human scientist trying to understating economic repression may need to study the great depression and the assumed causes, consequences and ultimate long-term effects. From the information they get herein, they will be better placed to explain and predict the causes of similar problems in posterity. However, in as much as it may be claimed that scientist are responsible for developing solutions for the future, it is worth noting that their knowledge and skills in this regard are not complete since it is difficult and in some cases impossible to understand the causality of human actions. Science should also not be assumed to be divorced from the past, in fact many scientific modes of study can be categorized as history since they are highly depend on past data on a given subject or related matters. In addition, scientific tool and techniques are frequently used in historical studies to confirm or disprove certain theories. For example archeology, which is one of the key areas of history, would be impossible to carry out without the contribution of science. Through scientific methods, historians are able to excavate in pursuit for antiques and human remains from previous periods in human history (Nicholas 1). In addition, science enables them to date, categorize and safely store the information of the given elements, for example when archeologist come upon pre-historic skull, they will need to carry out tissue and bone analysis so as to acquire more data about the object. Ultimately, this will involve DNA and other scientific studies, which will then be comparing with retrospective and current information to aid in forming, confirming or disproving hypothesis. Ultimately, it can be concluded that despite the fact that history is predominantly about the past and science is highly attuned towards development of future solutions, this assumption is not all-inclusive. Historians can be proven to have a great influence on the past as well and the contribution of history to the study of science cannot be overstated, scientist on the other hand are major contributors in historical research sine through scientific techniques, historians can make empirical deductions and inferences. Therefore, it is not realistic to assume that the scientist ‘s field is independent of history or that science is exclusively future and history past oriented, in reality both disciplines are regally interacting with each making a contribution to the other. Works Cited Horton, Helena. President Obama sends hand-written apology to professor after mocking history of art degrees. The Independent. 2014. Web. 25th Feb.2014 Kanazawa, Satoshi. "Science vs. History: A Reply to MacDonald." Social Forces 80.1 (2001): 349-52.  Monaghan, Peter. "Delicately, a Historian of Science Examines the Nazis Public-Health Campaigns." The Chronicle of Higher Education 45.38 (1999): A16-7.  Nicholas, Alchin. “Theory of knowledge”. London : Hodder Murray. 2006. Pluta, Joseph E. "Technology Vs. Institutions in Prehistory." Journal of Economic Issues 46.1 (2012): 209-26.  Read More