History as an Area of Knowledge (AOK) by Darcy Malone

Don Duffy

2024-03-07 22:16:14 UTC

We can be certain of history we are apart of although eye witness testimony is frequently incorrect.

2024-03-07 22:16:23 UTC

Yes. There are facts about dates and events that have been agreed upon by many.

Grant

2024-03-07 22:16:50 UTC

With regards to story telling, it is more similar to the arts. "History is written by the victors" is a saying because it carries an element of truth and emphasizes the perspective-heavy nature of our understanding of history. History also lacks a rigorous scientific method, which is foundational to knowledge in the sciences.

I agree with Don. However, views and perpectives can skew the story told.

2024-03-07 22:16:54 UTC

2024-03-07 22:16:56 UTC

People that are alive during the actual event and how widely it is shared with future generations. The gravity of its impact on society as a whole.

In archaeology, "historically significant" is anything found that is older than 50 years.

2024-03-07 22:17:05 UTC

I took great pleasure when I informed my parents that they were historically significant on their 50 birthdays.

molly

2024-03-07 22:17:11 UTC

According to me history is just facts and stories witnessed and written by people

The things that we can be certain of in History are accounts that are displayed by multiple witnesses.

2024-03-07 22:17:20 UTC

2024-03-07 22:17:23 UTC

I think there are basic facts about events that can be corroborated with multiple sources that we can be certain about. But things like causes and effects aren't certain

Historical Facts

2024-03-07 22:17:25 UTC

There are certainly things we can know for sure: events and specific dates of events. What's contestable is the implications/interpretations. - K. Martin

2024-03-07 22:17:25 UTC

The sciences. In the arts the forms and methods of these disciplines are often dissimilar,

History is heavily evidence-based, history is also an interpretive discipline

Human Science - the study of human existence and behavior.

Natural Science - are often seen to rely on evidence, rationality and the quest for deeper understanding.

The people in power.

2024-03-07 22:17:40 UTC

2024-03-07 22:17:43 UTC

I think we can trust the "objective" knowledge...the who, what, when...but the why and how (or "subjective" knowledge) may be less certain.

Leigh F.

2024-03-07 22:17:53 UTC

We can know the parts of history that involve objective facts: dates and numbers. Beyond that, things get subjective. The phrase "history is written by the victors" plays in here.

Allison Kline

2024-03-07 22:17:54 UTC

Some events we can be certain of (with primary source evidence/support)

We can be certain of what people think they remember.

mfeon2 — 2024-03-07 22:18:14 UTC

Something we can know for certain about history are facts such as when and where an event took place; who was there.

Historical Consensus

2024-03-07 22:18:15 UTC

experts should disagree about history. There are so many different sides and nuance and disagreement mean that we are probably closer to a real understanding of the event than if there is only one "official" version/understanding

molly

Leo McLellan

2024-03-07 22:18:18 UTC

History is made up of many documents, events, perspectives, and people. While it is generally very concrete in the statistics, dates, and facts, I think any study of history is enriched and is probably not incomplete without the context and nuance provided by exploring different perspectives, or looking at it with different "lenses".

Don Duffy

2024-03-07 22:18:23 UTC

History is written by those that did the hanging, as was said at the beginning of the movie Braveheart. So I guess they get to decide what is historically significant. Making sense of the past is a journey not a destination. Embrace that idea and it becomes more clear.

Grant

2024-03-07 22:18:23 UTC

Whoever controls the narrative or lines of mass media (generally people in power).

We can confirm dates and certain facts

2024-03-07 22:18:43 UTC

2024-03-07 22:18:46 UTC

Government during that time

2024-03-07 22:18:50 UTC

To some extent, the importance of an event is decided by the people who witness it and live through it - the more individual people who think it is important, the more first hand records and information there will be about that event

Significance

2024-03-07 22:19:04 UTC

As the reading noted, this has shifted over time. Often emphasis has been placed on the role of leaders and those individuals often drove historical narrative; however, a broader scope is important to a full understanding of not just historical fact but the interpretation and understanding of the impact of historical context. - K. Martin

1) Timings of the events 2) Life of the people 3) Culture 4) Technology etc.

srayala2 — 2024-03-07 22:19:05 UTC

2024-03-07 22:19:13 UTC

I agree with Grant's comment about how history is told by the victors - oral history/eye witness accounts are not exact science.

I guess it pertains to both. History is art and science and social interactions and... History encompasses all.

2024-03-07 22:19:15 UTC

Don Duffy

2024-03-07 22:19:24 UTC

History may use scientific methods to date artifacts but then use art to determine how something existed in a past time.

Most of history was chosen and told by the Europeans. Until recently, European bias has impacted history.

2024-03-07 22:19:51 UTC

2024-03-07 22:19:54 UTC

Historically significant depends on who is controlling the narrative.

2024-03-07 22:19:56 UTC

When experts disagree, I think we have to look at their interpretations and decide which one seems to be most supported by reliable evidence.

2024-03-07 22:20:08 UTC

I think history pulls so much from both that you can't really say it is more one or the other. There is a science to using evidence and researching primary sources, but the interpretation of these things is more of an art than a science

Leigh F.

2024-03-07 22:20:20 UTC

This is an interesting question because history itself affects prevailing trends in what is historically significant. Experts (like everyone) have bias. It isn't the role of a single historian to decide what is historically significant, but rather the role of the student of history to read broadly to hear from diverse opinions.

2024-03-07 22:20:31 UTC

I think it is a combination of both science and art because it is from the past interpreted artistically

2024-03-07 22:20:33 UTC

Chimamanda Adichie on the "Danger of a Single Story" on Ted Ex...many stories from the past should be viewed as what one person experiences is not the same as the other

I think history it depends on which part of history.

2024-03-07 22:20:44 UTC

mfeon2 — 2024-03-07 22:20:50 UTC

Napoleon said, "History is written by the winners." I think that our understanding of history changes depending on many things - perspective, bias, point of view, primary/secondary sources, etc.

Allison K.

2024-03-07 22:20:53 UTC

It is a social science.

It's a blending of the two. Using a critical lens to understand humans and how the world works and then expressing that understanding and sharing it with others. So it requires both science to examine and art to express what is understood. Sometimes it is more one than the other.

Place /Thing { Government(People), assigned organizations.

srayala2 — 2024-03-07 22:20:56 UTC

Leo McLellan

2024-03-07 22:21:21 UTC

We need to take into account elements like context, bias, and any agendas that may be playing a role in the documents we study. The saying that history is written by the victors seems generally true.

2024-03-07 22:21:23 UTC

I think history has more in common with the sciences because for me the arts is often based on imagination and creativity. While history may use its "imagination" to fill in some holes or unknowns, I think most of history is based on evidence and some type of "scientific" methodology.

2024-03-07 22:21:37 UTC

Feels like a trick question in that there is overlap for it all, right? :) But in a good way! I love the interconnectedness of our areas of knowledge.

Life imitates art and vice versa, but we can approach historical understanding through something akin to the scientific method. If I need to choose, I'd lean toward the sciences in that it is important for us to understand history in this way. -K. Martin

The decision of significance is in the eye of the beholder and those affected. Experts will not always agree. They think they are experts (know everything).

2024-03-07 22:22:01 UTC

Leigh F.

2024-03-07 22:22:22 UTC

History is both like the sciences and the arts, but more like the arts. It is up to the historian to tease out connections between events and craft a narrative.

Social Science

2024-03-07 22:23:02 UTC

As a History teacher, I use many of the same methods of research as my "harder" science colleagues...such as Claim, Evidence and Reasons...yes, I believe it's a science, though not an exact one!

History have common with sciences and art. They are inter related. Art can involve with different branches of science { Physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, zoology etc.}

srayala2 — 2024-03-07 22:23:08 UTC

Certainty

2024-03-07 22:23:08 UTC

There are some facts - like when something occured and what technology they had.

But historical understanding is about accepting that there are multiple versions and we won't ever know every factor or important information. There is no single answer and that is okay. complexity and nuance are essential.

John Green (my fav) said "Truth Resists Simplicity". And that has been one of my go to statements when teaching and learning of history. There is no simple answer. There is no complete understanding of historical events. And that is beautiful, not bad.

Leo McLellan

2024-03-07 22:23:10 UTC

I think it is right in between. But I will say, as an English teacher, it would be difficult to study or understand history without the artistic appreciation or literacy skills you build in the "artsy" classes.

Allison

2024-03-07 22:23:47 UTC

History is a product of its time. What ideas are popular? How is that history being used to support those ideas? Who is writing it and how is it being accepted?

mfeon2 — 2024-03-07 22:23:48 UTC

I think history has more in common with the sciences. Historians develop a hypothesis/claim about an event and depending on the evidence they choose to support it is what becomes current thinking, until we look at other sources and can make a different/new claim.

Why?

2024-03-07 22:26:17 UTC

Science and Art both have a very important role to play in historical thinking and understanding, focusing only on one limits your understanding of history, both are necessary. And History is necessary for better understandings of science and better art