Last Monday was the first day of school for me - again. I just finished up at a local community college with an Associate in Arts degree; now I'm at a local university setting off on a path that will hopefully take me to my desired destination, which is essentially unknown. The subject of History will be my focal point. My first class is about historical interpretation, and although it's required for History majors, I'm sure that I would've taken the class anyway. I'm considering this the last educational hurdle before beginning the classes that actually involve historical research. I figure a class titled Historical Interpretation will be a great precursor to the more research-based classes required for a History degree.
Our first module in class deals with a short introduction to what history is (and isn't) and whether the subject is an art or a science. In our first paper we have to take a position and defend it using John H. Arnold's, History: A Very Short Introduction. In our first class, the overwhelming majority of students, including myself, argued that history was an art. The defense of our position was that historians have to sift through never-ending amounts of documents, photos, interviews etc. and attempt to piece them together. There is a certain degree of interpretation involved; whereas science is more definitive.
After starting Arnold's book, however, I eventually changed my position. I started to see many similarities between science and history. History can be definitive. We know that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Martin Luther King was shot and there was a hurricane in New Orleans. Science can also be definitive. Diamonds are harder than talcum and water boils at 100 degrees C. However, both can have areas in which people may have differing opinions. Global warming is happening, but scientists argue as to what is causing it. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but there are many reasons why it occurred. History and science can also be used to learn about the past; what happened before our time on Earth, and also to guide us in our future endeavors.
Despite those very few examples, I have changed my mind yet again. My new position that History is an art is based primarily on the few (but major) differences and not the many similarities between science and history. The differences between science and history have to do with causation, effects and repetition. The similarities between art and history also cannot be overlooked. Both involve a certain degree of interpretation to understand and their content is always influenced by the author/artist's biases. I will touch on all of this supporting evidence, and more, in my essay which you can look for on Labor Day. That's all for now, thanks for reading.
AE
