Along with many of my fellow classmates, I am confused at these questions. I'm unsure what you mean by the compatibility of history and science. I think if they had any relationship at all it would be that they are both disciplines performed to create meaningful outcomes but, pushing against each other? Maybe they've been enhanced?
Joined: 01 Apr 2014 Posts: 8 Location: United States
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:10 pm Post subject:
I will preface this post by saying I am writing it post-seder, and am very tired. Hopefully I will say something coherent. I agree with some other folks that a big part of the relationship between History and Science is the dialectic. I do not think all three thinkers were sociologists, but they definitely all had major impacts on Sociology. I am trying to understand what "compatible" philosophies and methodologies would mean. I like what Emma R. said about them being alike, though I wonder if they could also be somewhat conflicting, in a Hegelian sort of way. I don't think compatible philosophies are interchangeable. I think compatible philosophies would imply that when you are looking at the Hisory of Science or the Science of History, you can use the philosophies of both History and Science simultaneously. I think the biggest factor that they share right now is the importance of change over time, and a sort of movement toward perfection. Both Science and History are giving new power to the public view. I guess that makes their methodologies compatible, but I'm not sure about their philosophies. I think the way people were thinking about the purpose of the disciplines was changing too, and people were starting to get that understanding History and Science is not just useful in regard to knowing about the past or the universe, but also changes one's thinking about everything, and enhances one's understanding of humanity. Again, sorry if this does not make sense.
The philosophies of History and Science are changing, yet they are becoming more polar and less compatible throughout time. As these disciplines become more defined they are more separate, and you must specialize in that specific discipline to be a part of its progression. In the past Science and History overlapped in many ways and were often changed by non specialists. As Kant and Hegel proved, you did not have to be an historian to change History or a scientist to change Science. Nowadays Science is about understanding further and analyzing the world we live in with the goal of being able to utilize this deeper understanding to benefit ourselves. Science used to be just about trying to understand and classify the wonders of the world and find a single system that explained all of the mysteries. Likewise History has become more regimented because it used to be about just recording things that happened and discovering the consistent themes which made that history possible, as opposed to the modern analysis of History. I suppose History has not changed its methodology as much as science has. It is closer to its primal form that science which has radically changed and progressed.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
