The Use of History and Science to Attain Knowledge - Essay Example

 The Use of History and Science to Attain Knowledge Introduction Many times the question has been asked on whether everything about the available knowledge present is to be held for certain. Ever since the development and advancement of the sciences and technology, most people would think that everything about the world, and that every form of knowledge that can be grasped about everything, can be known without a doubt because of the technological and scientific advances that aid humanity in knowing the world. Although, it is the trademark of this century’s intellectual culture that every sort of knowledge is just subjective in which anyone, or any thought and idea, merely sees a different perspective for the same subject. This intellectual mindset cannot just simply claim that this stand is just out of the comfort and convenience to avoid academic debating. Subjectivism has had its foundation ever since intellectual modernity started even during the 18th century. During the Enlightenment period, French philosopher Rene Descartes stated his famous dictum of “cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am”, it shaped the way how the modern way of intellectual thinking developed. Descartes’ theory helped shape the sciences and mathematics understand knowledge through theory and the rationality that human reason is always certain because it never doubts that it is rationalizing knowledge. This theory, of course, has been opposed by the British Empiricist philosophers who believed that the only way knowledge can be attained and be certain is through the experience of the physical senses. Eventually, different schools of thought from various intellectual fields would claim to be closest to certainty of knowledge. History and science have always been the fields of study which tried to attain truth for the sake of credibility. History The perception of history has an essential position in human thought. It appeals to concepts of human activity, change, the part of conditions for materialism in human affairs, and the supposed significance of historical events. It suggests the possibility of better understanding things in the present, by understanding the decisions, factors, and conditions that brought events to its existing circumstances. It is not a surprise that historians, theorists and intellectuals have from time to time turned their awareness to efforts to study history itself and the fundamentals of historical knowledge. In light of this, questions of historical knowledge ask whether events and things in the past exist and have any real significance to the present. This is the task in which the role of being a historian is placed with much importance. It is the task of historians to explain, explain, and interpret events and conditions of the past. They outline means of presenting the intricate actions and dealings of the past, clarify and interpret momentous results. Historians base their conclusions on proof in the present that stands on the facts about the past. The accounts of historians require to be founded firmly on the evidences of any historical records, and their accounts and understanding require that the historian arrive at premise about social foundations and meanings of various cultures. Historians can turn other theories in the social sciences to turn up at theories about underlying causes and human behavior. Historical statements depend eventually upon factual investigations and rationale theorizing. In due course, the historian's undertaking is to bring light as to what, why, and how of the past happened based on supposition from the facts of the present. One of the ways the study of history can use to help in ascertaining its facts and findings is through the use of a method called hermeneutics. The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic and non-linguistic expressions (Ramberg and Gjesdal, “Hermeneutics”). At first, hermeneutics was used by the Ancient Greeks to understand correctly what was being expressed in written and non-written forms of language. During the Medieval Ages, hermeneutics was used to interpret the meanings behind biblical texts and messages and it still continues to do so until this very day. It was only during the Enlightenment Age that hermeneutics took a more academic and secular nature and purpose. Much of this turn was apparent after German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Hegel developed his system for the philosophy of history. Hegel's philosophy of history is perhaps the most fully developed philosophical theory of history that attempts to discover meaning or direction in history. Hegel regards history as an intelligible process moving towards a specific condition—the realization of human freedom (Little, “Philosophy of History”). It was through Hegel that historical hermeneutics was developed from other intellectual figures after him. Like reading, understanding history means moving along the paths of the hermeneutic circle, from part to whole and back again. Because the historical mind is itself situated in history, there is, however, no end to this circular movement. History cannot, as the Hegelians had been arguing, be conceptualized, once and for all, by speculative philosophy. Understanding history is an ongoing activity. This, however, does not make it superfluous as a science. In our effort to understand history, historical life is brought to consciousness about itself. Doing historical work means actively participating in the cultural tradition that is being investigated; it means being historical in the most emphatic way. (Ramberg and Gjesdal) Science Science always held that the scientific method is what every scientist must use to approach any scientific objective so that certainty can be attained. The scientific method’s nature of being measurable and empirical is what gives the impression that the knowledge of the applied, physical and natural sciences is very accurate, exacting or as precise as it can get. Ever since the development and fascination for learning during the Renaissance, the interest for understanding the nature of things to a modern scientific manner developed. It was during the Enlightenment Age that modern science began to rapidly pour into the academic and intellectual circles and came up that the sciences has certain aims in which its results should be clearly interpreted as such. All these factors paved for the Scientific Revolutions to occur from the 18th century onwards for science to mature. As the sciences progressed with time and age, it had to constantly shift paradigms and reassert stands of knowledge to go with the changing of the times. Scientific revolutions are faced by a growing sense that an existing paradigm has stopped to function sufficiently in the investigation of a facet of nature to which the paradigm had up to that time led the way. Thomas Kuhn, a renowned contemporary philosopher of science observed the eventuality of a mature nature of science had to undergo such process of change and adaptation to further reach close to its goal certainty: A mature science, according to Kuhn, experiences alternating phases of normal science and revolutions. In normal science the key theories, instruments, values and metaphysical assumptions that comprise the disciplinary matrix are kept fixed, permitting the cumulative generation of puzzle-solutions, whereas in a scientific revolution the disciplinary matrix undergoes revision, in order to permit the solution of the more serious anomalous puzzles that disturbed the preceding period of normal science (Bird, “Thomas Kuhn”). Normal science approaches on the sources of supposed connection to paradigms is a significant and distinguishing attribute of Kuhn's view of scientific development. The typical view expounds the increasing accumulation of new knowledge in terms of the relevance of the scientific method. It also seems the scientific method covers the set of laws of scientific rationality. It can be that those rules could not account for the creative side of science since there are kind of new theories. Knowledge in the sciences then is always ever improving, if not changing, as every new discovery and theory presents a new paradigm of knowledge. For example, it was first thought prior to the 18th century that the world was flat, then during the Age of Exploration it was discovered that the world is actually round and that there is no such literal place as the end of the world. Also consider the nature of diseases prior and after the Medieval Age. Before and during the Medieval Age, it was said that plagues or diseases were caused by the fury of God or the curse of the devil since the culture of society and the intellectual circles was mostly religious. It was not until the Modern Age in which the scientific method and scientific rationality stepped up and saw the nature of diseases in a more empirical and calculated manner. Conclusion It is possible for history and science to attain knowledge. History can always use the method of hermeneutics to understand the literary meanings of past documents and accounts based on the inferences of the present. Science can always rely on the scientific method and scientific rationality to remain as objective as it can with knowledge. All this can be done despite the wide differences of cultures and opinions because both history and science work on a framework or system that has to be as objective as possible without having any rooms for bias and selective inferences. It is because of this that history and science have always been regarded with such regard and respect. Works Cited Bird, Alexander. “Thomas Kuhn.” plato.stanford.edu. 13 Aug. 2004. Web Little, Daniel. “Philosophy of History.” plato.stanford.edu. 18 Feb. 2007. Web Ramberg, Bjorn and Gjesdal, Kristin. “Hermeneutics.” plato.stanford.edu. 9 Nov. 2005. Web Read More