An
issue which has been raised respectively -though perhaps not always
profitability concerns the scientific status of historical research. The issue
centres round the definition of terms and the criteria used. The status of
historical research as a scientific endeavour can hardly be questioned, if the
criteria are defined in terms of its reliance on critical methods of discovery
and of scholarship. If, on the other hand, we insist that science be oriented
toward the discover of laws capable of conclusive verification, historical
research probably does not qualify as science.
These
are three tasks in historical research:
1.
The Collection of Data:
Historical facts are not ‘knowable’ in the same as
the facts of the physical sciences; they have to be inferred and accepted on
the basis of plausibility. Historical research is generally based on unique
events which occurred but once and which cannot occur again or repeated.
2.
The Treatment and
Interpretation of the Data:
Historical
problems, on the other hand, since they deal with unique events, are verifiable
only on the basis of logical
deduction. It is very difficult for the historian to make an adequate analysis
of diaries, letters, etc. often he must deal with a profusion and complexity of
data produced under varying conditions of insight and incentive.
3.
Products of Historical Research:
Historical research can also be criticised from the standpoint
of the products it seeks to provide on the concept of causation, which is
especially confusing in the case of historical research. In summary, historical
research can be considered lacking a number of the characteristics of the scientific
method, interpreted in its narrow sense.
Comments
Post a Comment
any suggestion on my side