Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

Historians have long debated whether history is a science or an art, and some have concluded that the question is moot because science and art are closely related. In History as Art and as Science: Twin Vistas of the Past ( Hughes 1964 : 2), E. K. Carr argued that, “Scientists … and historians are … engaged in different branches of the same study: the study of man and his environment … the object … is the same: to increase man's understanding and mastery over his environment.” While this assessment may seem logical and persuasive at first glance, it is, in fact unsustainable. True, there may be some similarities between the goals of historians and scientists, but the similarities are, at best, superficial and in no way tie the two disciplines together. There is nothing scientific about history. It is a form of literature; it is a highly sophisticated but utterly unscientific art. Unlike the scientific process where objectivity is the essential ingredient and all examinations of the same evidence must produce the same result, the historical process is inevitably subjective. All historians-sometimes by design, sometimes unintentionally, but nevertheless in all cases-impose themselves upon their subjects and the cumulative result is often chaos. That is, the outcomes produced by various historians dealing with the same topic are never the same and thus result in confusion. Put another ... log in or subscribe to read full text