. I shall therefore propound answers to my four questions such as I think any present-day historian would accept. Here they. Will be rough and ready answers but they, will serve for a provisional definition of our subject-matter and they will be. Defended and elaborated as the argument proceeds.
(a) What is history? Every historian would agree I think,,That history is a kind of research or inquiry. What kind of inquiry it is I do not yet ask. The point is that generically. It belongs to what we call the sciences: that is the forms, of thought whereby we ask questions and try to answer, them. Science, in general it is important to realize does not, consist in collecting what we already know and arranging it in. This or that kind of pattern.It consists in fastening upon something we do, not know and trying to discover it. Playing patience with things we already. Know may be a useful means towards this end but it, is not the end itself. It is at best only the means. It is scientifically. Valuable only in so far as the new arrangement gives us the answer to a question we have already decided to ask.That is why all science begins from the knowledge of our own ignorance: not our ignorance, of everything but our ignorance. Of some definite thing-the origin of Parliament the cause, of cancer the chemical, composition of the sun the way, to make. A pump work without muscular exertion on the part of a man or a horse or some other docile animal. Science is finding things. Out:And in that sense history is a science.
, there are many kinds of the kind of history
.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""