Many students believe that a historian’s job is only to understand the past; likewise they believe that a human scientist’s job is solely to change the future. However, as a “knower”, I now comprehend that there is much more to these jobs than meets the eyes. I believe that these job “definitions” only describe the mere superficial part of the job, that there is a lot more to being a historian or a human scientist then just one simple task. However with these job “definitions”, that society has given, are many complex questions on how we accumulate knowledge on certain issues, these questions are known as knowledge issues. Some of the knowledge issues included in the job “definitions” are: Could history be seen as a cycle? To what extent can …show more content…
I believe this to be true due to the fact that many events do occur more than once. Take for example Hitler and Napoleon, who both tried to invade Russia but failed, generally for the same reason. In this case I define history as the study of a whole series of past events connected with someone or something. Many events occur more than once such is the case with genocides. Many have occurred in the past centuries, such as: Al-Anfal Genocide, Moriori Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, Irish Potato Famine, Pygmy Genocide, Native American Genocide, “stolen Generations” of Aboriginal, Armenla Genocide, Bosnia Genocide, Holocaust, and Darfur. In this case I define genocide not only as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, or of a particular ethnic group or nation, but also the failure to act, such as in the Irish Potato Famine. It can be inferred, by the number of genocides, that although we study the past we as a society don’t learn from it. Many people may argue that history does not repeat itself like Karl Marx stated, due to the fact that histories purpose is not to predict, but rather to record and analyze. In a sense this is correct, due to the fact that the future does not know anything about history. However, we as people like to build our future based on past events, or at least like to THINK we …show more content…
Many people may think that our human free will would seem to contrast the idea of “law-like” regularities in our human behavior; however, human scientist would think differently. The human sciences try to answer and clarify these types of questions of uncertainties looking and studying the past to helping us understand and sometimes predict human behavior in the future. Despite the concept of human free will, human behavior can be fairly predictable. An example would be that if prices of potatoes go up consumers will buy fewer potatoes, likewise if there is a food shortage people will be unhappy. The law of large numbers, a contribution of the human sciences, allows short-term predictions on subjects such as about deaths in a country, marriages, or numbers of birth. This is because the law states, “in large populations random variation tend to cancel out”. Since the law of large numbers allows predictions of large groups’ rather than individual behavior many laws of the human sciences are probabilistic in nature; however, predictions of human scientist sometimes turn out wrong this is because some predictions are based on trends rather than laws. I define trends as a concept that shows the direction of movement of a variable but does not give an explanation. On the other hand I define law as a concept that shows the direction of
History of the World in 6 Glasses makes it clear that the history of mankind is a history of our consumption. Whether we are drinking "liquid bread" in Mesopotamia, pondering revolution in a Coffeehouse in Paris, or throwing tea leafs into the ocean in Boston, these drinks have had a profound impact on who we are. As Standage says in the introduction to his book "They survive in our homes today as living reminders of bygone eras, fluid testaments to the forces that shaped the modern world. Revealing its origins, and you may never look at your favorite drink in quite the same way again." I highly recommend this book to anyone thirsty for knowledge about the world around them... or even if they're just thirsty for a good drink.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
It’s truly fascinating how there are so many different approaches to history, how so many different types of minds and schools of thought can come together to study the events of the world’s past. There are so many ways to approach what happened in our past, and the groups of historians previously mentioned are only a fraction of the actual number of different ways of researching and thinking that exists as it pertains to the study of history. History is in some ways, always a mystery, and all historians, regardless of schooling, training or biases, seek to accomplish one goal: to understand what occurred before us and why, and to use that knowledge to learn how the world was shaped into the world we live in today.
Steven Pinker lays the foundation for his book by highlighting three main philosophies that permeate society’s view of humanity and their historical context: The Blank Slate (empiricism), the Noble Savage (romanticism), and the Ghost in the Machine (dualism) (2002, p. 11). Pinker is correct to challenge previous philosophical frameworks as they skew the way scientific research has been conducted. Present-day scientific and social research will only benefit from an acknowledgement of innate human nature.
Further, Daughan covers the British blockade on American ports and the Napoleonic Wars. First, the British blockade on 1813 made difficult for American flagships to leave ports because the British Navy blocked almost all American ports with the exception of New England which provided goods to the British Navy during the war. Secondly, Daughan adds that the Napoleonic wars had a major impact on the American local war; exclusively, Napoleon’s defeat in Russia gave more confidence to Britain for supporting the War of 1812 longer. In contrast, A.J. Langguth did not include in his book, Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence, any international aspect that might influence the War of 1812.
Elected in 1932 following the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took on his presidency as a challenge to reform the United States by finding ways to provide a larger amount of people economic security in an unequal financial environment. To accomplish this goal, Roosevelt not only implemented a variety of New Deal programs under the categories of reform, recovery and relief, but also redefined what the word “liberty” meant for Americans.
When pressed with explaining the progression of human society to its current state and, more broadly, the historical process in general, one has several possible options. Three of the most compelling views, however, can be attributed to Jared Diamond, William McNeill, and Hans Zinsser. Although each offers a distinct model of how to understand chance and how history explains evolution, they all take radically different approaches. Diamond proposes that everything is explicable by a few simple laws and principles, and even goes so far as to suggest that there are no alternatives in history. McNeill argues that although there are loose, regulated principles at work, they do not dictate or explain everything; instead, he suggests that they create broad general patterns but adds that while there is pattern, there is also a fair amount of chance. Zinsser suggests simply that historians have largely disregarded disease as an agent of change. While all seem to be sound, when examining these three views on a more fundamental level, while focusing specifically on the role disease has played throughout history, it is evident that Zinsser’s stands as the most well-reasoned.
Another major interpretation toward the little horn is that little horn is refereeing to the papal Rome. Historist, believes papal Rome fits most correctly to what Daniel described about little horn, and one of major point would be indicating time frame “time, times, and half a time (7:25).” Historist believes “time, times, and half a time” should be interpreted in symbolic way, and translate them as three and a half years. However, futurist and preterist argues that time should be interpreted in literalistic way, and does not agree with historists’ interpretation. Historist believes time frame need to be interpreted in symbolic way because all of the Daniel were written in symbolic way, and it makes most sense to them when they translated
Author Yuval Noah Harari has a unique way of reviewing the past fourteen billion years in his monograph Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. His intention for writing this book is mainly to bring up the conversation of the human condition and how it has affected the course of history. In this case, the human condition coincides with the inevitable by-products of human existence. These include life, death, and all the emotional experiences in between. Harari is trying to determine how and why the events that have occurred throughout the lives of Homo Sapiens have molded our social structures, the natural environment we inhabit, and our values and beliefs into what they are today.
As Berger says, “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (157). The upper class mystifies us to stay in control; without being able to see things in our own way, we are being deprived from our right to understanding ourselves and placing ourselves in a role of society.
It is often easy to conclude that ambiguity exists in most of what we know. This reinforces the common idea that as we gain more knowledge, the less we truly know. We tend to ask more questions than receive answers following a large discovery for knowledge and because of this, we can never be certain about our current understanding of the world. As an IB knower, reading this statement conveys the incompressible vastness of our world and what surrounds us, further emphasising this idea that what we know now maybe misperceived. Many moments in history have replicated this,
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” This famous quote from Edmund Burke is one that many of us are familiar with. In spite of this, many people disregard history, branding it as unimportant or irrelevant to modern-day situations. However, history is actually a quite important subject with a myriad of lessons to be learned for anybody to apply now and in the future. Additionally, history gives us much needed information about our past, keeping us from forgetting why our nations became the way they are. It allows us to draw parallels between modern events and past events to collect our best judgment and gives us the important knowledge of the origin of our modern world, giving extra credibility
History is a story told over time. It is a way of recreating the past so it can be studied in the present and re-interpreted for future generations. Since humans are the sole beneficiaries of history, it is important for us to know what the purpose of history is and how historians include their own perspective concerning historical events. The purpose and perspective of history is vital in order for individuals to realise how it would be almost impossible for us to live out our lives effectively if we had no knowledge of the past. Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying.
I define history as important events that have happened in the past, and the ones that are presently happening. At some time or another everything will be considered history. History tells a story, whether it’s written, painted, carved, or sung; a collection of events that someone explains to you that is usually important.