The Contrasting Roles of Historians and Scientists

Historians utilize primary sources to reconstruct events that have previously occurred in order to create a clearer image of the past. In opposition, human scientists investigate varying aspects of human activity to reveal discoveries that are meant to bring significant changes to the future. This is presented in the assertion that “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” This appears to be false considering that both the historian and the human scientist require a satisfactory comprehension of past events, as their roles necessitate a desire to change the future. The respective areas of knowledge of the historian and human scientist express this through the lens of perception and reason, as they invoke knowledge issues in regards to the past and the future.

The claim is subjective, as it doesn’t clarify what exactly qualifies as understanding. Do we all have to come across a common agreement for it to be considered as understanding? In terms of history, the information that we deem knowledge is gathered and interpreted by historians. This suggests that history can be interpreted but never completely understood. Therefore, the historian is a creator of history rather than a recorder of it since they inevitably use personal perspective in reaching conclusions. Furthermore, a knowledge issue is present as history is merely a selection of information due to the filtration of primary sources. Even with the work of historians, there appear to be gaps in the historical record which detracts from obtaining thorough understanding. In addition, the assertion is unclear in terms of what exactly constitutes the past, the future and how we can measure change. However...

... middle of paper ...

...allows us to apply the conclusions of these studies to reality in order to project future human behavior. After watching clips of the 1950s Asch conformity experiments, I was able to realize that this study still has relevance today as individuals are often subjected to conforming to the ideas of the majority as opposed to relying on their intellect.

Even though historians are required to deduce what is accepted as understanding, they inevitably view history through a modern lens which provides a framework for the future similar to human scientists. Therefore, the assertion appears to be true to a certain extent as historians are forced to understand the past while human scientists must look to change the future. Yet, the past and future appear to be interchangeable in terms of importance for both the historian and human scientist attempting to derive knowledge.