Difference Between Historians and Scientists

Difference amidst Historians and ScientistsYong Jia BuTheory of Knowledge history and the Human Sciences Stepping Stones through Time appellation 5 The historians task is to understand the aside, the homophile scientist, by contrast, is feeling to change the upcoming. To what extent is this true in these scene of actions of knowledge?History and the charitable sciences argon considered two different subjects of knowledge, but ar leafy vegetable in that both atomic number 18 concerned with tender-hearted origination and interactions. To adduce that the historians task is to understand the other(prenominal), the gentleman scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future suggests a method of distinguishing between these two atomic number 18as of knowledge found on the eon mould relevant to each, and the inventions for which each area obtains knowledge history focuses on analysis of last(prenominal) events, their causes and implications, spot human science s, such as geography and psychology, seek more to find patterns in human activity in order to predict and change the future. Subjects such as geopolitics and evolutionary anthropology croup, however, bridge the time gap between history and the human sciences, and cause the purposes of knowledge in these two areas to all overlap as well. In these particular subjects, fellow feeling the past and ever-changing the future are non necessarily divergent purposes, but purposes which layabout work fall out in hand to allow a knower to acquire and make headway use of knowledge.The quotation in the topic of this paper suggests that history is an area of knowledge which beats a greater emphasis on pinch the past than on using the acquired knowledge to achieve goals or to alter the flight of future events. One reason why this attitude toward history great power exist is that out of the vast collection of past events studied in this discipline, the majority of subjects are desired to be too distant in the past or too far removed from the concerns of todays orderliness to be of signifi fuckingt influence to the future. While this claim is likely not true, as knowledge is almost always pursued because it has value and applications, this feeling indirectly reveals the expectations of a believable historian to record and render diachronic knowledge in the most accurate form possible, and that he or she is not motivated to influence the record or future by putting forth historical information that supports personal agendas. A credible historian is wherefore someone who uncovers and makes sense of the past for the sake of mind what has come before. A credible historian recognizes that the knowledge gained his or her studies can be relevant to or take value in the present and future, but does not attempt to control how the knowledge whitethorn suit influential to society. When I enquiryed the topic of whether Louis Riel, a Canadian politician and irregul ar during the late 1800s, should have been sentenced to death for treason, my goal was to gain a reform understanding of who Riel was and the circumstances surrounding his death, and then to evaluate the events based on the information I had gathered. In presenting my findings, I needed to show that the conclusions I came to had been achieved through consistent and impartial treatment of historical evidence, and that although my findings may at last challenge or disprove other positions, the focus on my research was to break down understand historical events rather than to promote what I believed to be true. While I cannot consider myself a credible historian, I believe that those who can would go through a similar process in their studies, in which the historian investigates, makes sense of, and communicates his or her findings without actively aiming to change the future. In this way, a historians main concern is to understand the past, disdain awareness of the potential impli cations that their pursuit and refinement of historical knowledge can have on the future.In some cases, although events may have occurred centuries ago, their consequences can continue to affect the lives of people for a long time, and the way that historians interpret evidence surrounding such events can significantly influence the decisions do by individuals or even entire nations. Society may actively pursue historical knowledge in order to solve problems concerning the future. The validation of semipolitical boundaries, though it may fall deep down field of geopolitics and therefore the human sciences, is closely tied to and influenced by historical land claims and records of settlement. In the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands dispute, Japan, china, and Taiwan all claim to have sovereignty over a set of uninhabited islands in the East chinaware sea based on historical records and proceedings (Drifte 11). The Chinese claim is based on documents from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries that describe ownership of the islands by Taiwan, which China also claims to be part of its own imaginery. Disputes also revolve round the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895, which ceded islands under Chinese control to Japan but did not limitedally mention the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands (Drifte 12). The understanding of historical events and interpretation of historical documents thus play an important role in shaping the political future, as they are used by governments and international organizations to negotiate territorial boundaries. This field exemplifies how the historians role is to look equally toward understanding the past and changing the future.In comparison to history, the human sciences are associated with a more present-to-future time frame. Human scientists recognize the importance of understanding the past observations and studies that their knowledge is based upon, but it is the application of existing knowledge to naked as a jaybird situations and proble ms that is the purpose at the centre of the human sciences. One goal of a human geographer may be to predict the volume and direction of human migration to and from a nation, so that this information can be used to protagonist shape a nations future migration policies and perhaps stop demographic changes not desired by the nation. To do this, the geographer would need to have background knowledge such as the theory of push and deplume factors of migration, which consists of laws of migration developed by Ernest George Ravenstein in 1885, and modified by later geographers. Ravensteins theory outlines general patterns in the movement of people from one place to another, such as that migrants proceeding long distances generally go by preference to one of the great centres of commerce or industry (Corbett), and while Ravenstein and later contributors must have based their conclusions on studies of specific migratory cases, the statements within the theory do not include details rega rding the specific past occurrences that the theory is derived from. The principles of migration listed in this theory act as a condensed body of knowledge that can be learned and applied to real conditions to make predictions about migration trends in the future, which can subsequently prompt actions to invalidate undesired outcomes. As extensive understanding of the origins of current theories does not necessarily improve the effectiveness of their use, it is not considered essential that human scientists focus their time on understanding past developments which led to the formation of current theories. Rather, human scientists are encouraged to look toward changing the future by readily using the latest complication of knowledge in their field.There are also disciplines which, although considered human sciences, are very concerned with understanding the past. evolutionary anthropologists seek both to investigate the origins of human beings, as well as to change future scientif ic paradigms based on new discoveries. In 2013, anthropologists working in southern Georgia excavated 1.8 million-year-old skulls of human ancestors which have forced scientists to second thought the story of early human evolution (Sample), because the existence of these early humankind in Europe at the same time as the existence of early human being in Africa undermines the widely accepted theory that humans evolved from species that originated in Africa. Regardless of whether this discovery leads to a new evolutionary theory, it illustrates how in one way, the purpose of knowledge in evolutionary anthropology is to seek understanding of the past as historians wouldby investigating the collective origins and past of the human specieswhile in another way, the evolutionary anthropologist also seeks to change the future of the discipline by challenging the accepted theories and paradigms of today. Understanding the past and changing the future can thus be equally important objective s in the advancement of the human sciences.When a knower strives to change the future, he or she often realizes the need to understand the past in order to better predict the outcomes and consequences of his or her actions. Conversely, in attempting to understand the past, a knower may be motivated to modify existing approaches toward knowledge to change the future. Subjects within history and the human sciences may lean closer to either the purpose of understanding the past or the purpose of changing the future, but are likely some combination of the two. As history and the human sciences are thus difficult to distinguish on the basis of time frame and purpose of knowledge, additional consideration of their differences in methodologies or sources of evidence may aid in clarifying the differences between the natures of these two areas of knowledge.Word count 1479Works CitedCorbett, John. Ernest George Raventstein The Laws of Migration, 1885. Centre for SpatiallyIntegrated Social Sci ence. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2011. Web.26 Nov. 2013.Drifte, Reinhard. The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands territorial Dispute between Japan and Chinabetween the Materialization of the China Threat and Japan Reversing the Outcomeof World War II? The enquiry Unit on International Security and Cooperation(UNISCI), May 2013. PDF file.Sample, Ian. Skull of Homo Erectus Throws paper of Human Evolution into Disarray. TheGuardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.