Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 990 views

    GE2 - LESSON 3 History and The Historian

    Uploaded by

    The Psycho
    This document discusses the subjectivity of history and whether it can still be considered a scientific discipline. It notes that historians cannot access the past directly and can only study representations of the past through historical sources. As interpreters of these sources, historians are inevitably influenced by their own contexts and perspectives. However, the document argues that the study of history remains scientific because historians employ rigorous methodologies in their research and analysis of sources. They establish rules for dealing with conflicting accounts and validating evidence. While bias cannot be avoided, historians can balance it by relying on evidence that supports their interpretations. Maintaining rigor in research allows historians to produce knowledge about the past despite the inherent subjectivity of the historian's role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GE2 - LESSON 3 History and The Historian

    Uploaded by

    The Psycho
    990 views1 page
    This document discusses the subjectivity of history and whether it can still be considered a scientific discipline. It notes that historians cannot access the past directly and can only study representations of the past through historical sources. As interpreters of these sources, historians are inevitably influenced by their own contexts and perspectives. However, the document argues that the study of history remains scientific because historians employ rigorous methodologies in their research and analysis of sources. They establish rules for dealing with conflicting accounts and validating evidence. While bias cannot be avoided, historians can balance it by relying on evidence that supports their interpretations. Maintaining rigor in research allows historians to produce knowledge about the past despite the inherent subjectivity of the historian's role.

    Original Title

    GE2 -LESSON 3 History and the Historian

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the subjectivity of history and whether it can still be considered a scientific discipline. It notes that historians cannot access the past directly and can only study representations of the past through historical sources. As interpreters of these sources, historians are inevitably influenced by their own contexts and perspectives. However, the document argues that the study of history remains scientific because historians employ rigorous methodologies in their research and analysis of sources. They establish rules for dealing with conflicting accounts and validating evidence. While bias cannot be avoided, historians can balance it by relying on evidence that supports their interpretations. Maintaining rigor in research allows historians to produce knowledge about the past despite the inherent subjectivity of the historian's role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    990 views1 page

    GE2 - LESSON 3 History and The Historian

    Uploaded by

    The Psycho
    This document discusses the subjectivity of history and whether it can still be considered a scientific discipline. It notes that historians cannot access the past directly and can only study representations of the past through historical sources. As interpreters of these sources, historians are inevitably influenced by their own contexts and perspectives. However, the document argues that the study of history remains scientific because historians employ rigorous methodologies in their research and analysis of sources. They establish rules for dealing with conflicting accounts and validating evidence. While bias cannot be avoided, historians can balance it by relying on evidence that supports their interpretations. Maintaining rigor in research allows historians to produce knowledge about the past despite the inherent subjectivity of the historian's role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GE 02

    HISTORY and the HISTORIAN

    If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian, is it possible to come up with an
    absolute historical truth? Is history an objective discipline? If it is not, is it still worthwhile to study history? These
    questions have haunted historians for many generations. Indeed, an exact and accurate account of the past is impossible
    for the very simple reason that we cannot go back to the past. We cannot access the past directly as our subject matter.
    Historians only get access representation of the past through historical sources and evidences.

    Therefore, it is the historian’s job not just to seek historical evidences and facts but also to interpret these facts.
    “Facts cannot speak for themselves.” It is the job of the historian to give meaning to these facts and organize them into a
    timeline, establish causes, and write history. Meanwhile, the historian is not a blank paper who mechanically interprets
    and analyses present historical fact. He is a person of his own who is influenced by his own context, environment,
    ideology, education, and influences, among others. In that sense, his interpretation of the historical fact is affected by his
    context and circumstances. His subjectivity will inevitably influence the process of his historical research: the
    methodology that he will use, the facts that he shall select and deem relevant, his interpretation, and even the form of his
    writings. Thus, in one way or another, history is always subjective. If that is so, can history still be considered as an
    academic and scientific inquiry?

    Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot ascertain absolute objectivity, the study
    of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that historians employ. Historical
    methodology comprises certain techniques and rules that historians follow in order to properly utilize sources and
    historical evidences in writing history. Certain rules apply in cases of conflicting accounts in different sources, and on
    how to properly treat eyewitness accounts and oral sources as valid historical evidence. In doing so, historical claims
    done by historians and the arguments that they forward in their historical writings, while may be influenced by the
    historian’s inclinations, can still be validated by using reliable evidences and employing correct and meticulous historical
    methodology.

    The Annales School of History is a school of history born in France that challenged the canons of history. This school of
    thought did away with the common historical subjects that were almost always related to the conduct of states and
    monarchs. Annales scholars like Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch,Fernand Braudel, and Jacques Le Goff studied other subjects
    in a historical manner.They were concerned with social history and studied longer historical periods. For example,
    Annales scholars studied the history of peasantry, the history of medicine, or even the history of environment. The history
    from below was pioneered by the same scholars. They advocated that the people and classes who were not reflected in
    the history of the society in the grand manner be provided with space in the records of mankind. In doing this, Annales
    thinkers married history with other disciplines like geography, anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics.

    For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral account as his data in studying the ethnic history of the Ifugaos
    in the Cordilleras during the American Occupation, he needs to validate the claims of his informant through comparing
    and corroborating it with written sources. Therefore, while bias is inevitable, the historian can balance this out by relying
    to evidences that back up his claim. In this sense, the historian need not let his bias blind his judgment and such bias is
    only acceptable if he maintains his rigor as a researcher.

    You might also like