03.13.06
Moment of Insight
It seems to me that in theory a fledgling scientist is in many respects similar to a young historian in the early years of their education. The purpose of an undergraduate science education is to become familiar with thousands of years of discoveries in mathematics, biological sciences, chemistry, physics, and medicine. In essence, a young scientist is studying the history of their field. I suppose that the difference between a scientist and historian occurs when the scientist transcends the elementary studies and progresses from learning scientific history to creating it while the historian continues to study and analyze history.
Chris Said:
March 13, 2006 at 10:48 pm
You know and I know that a historian can create history (e.g. Biblical writers, Josephus, Herodutus, etc.).
Perry Poteet Said:
March 14, 2006 at 8:17 am
Incorrect,
Historians can influence history with their record keeping or research but the very nature of a historian is to be independent of the creation of history. It is similar in some ways to a journalistic dogma: Who, What, When, Where, but not Why. Historians are to accurately record and research history but not “create” history by their work meaning they are not to falsify their recordings in an effort to “create” history.
Chris Said:
March 15, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“…the very nature of a historian is to be independent of the creation of history.”
Where did you come up with that?