John Lewis’s Gaddis’s book, The Landscape of History, is a very interesting read that compels the idea of a natural view of history. Gaddis constructs many metaphors in the introduction of the novel to express his optimism towards the nature of history. For example, in chapter one he introduces the illustration of Caspar David Friedrich, The Wanderer above the Sea of Fog to depict the landscape and starts to describe it’s perspective history. His narrations are precise because he ties in aspects of art history to expand on the knowledge of why history came to be. Gaddis’s states; “This gets us close to what historians do-or at least, to echo Machiavelli, should have the odor of doing: it is to interpret the past for the purposes with a view
…show more content…
In succeeding chapters, Gaddis goes more into depth about the evolution of social sciences. In chapter two, he discusses the relevance of time and space. Gaddis makes many connections to geography and the patterns that we see extend throughout eras. He explains a lot about the historical method and why it’s engaged into many historical theories and concepts. He claims; “The answer isn’t as flaky as you might think, because when it comes to the dimensions of time and space with which historians have to deal, it really is tortoises all the way down: time and space are infinitely divisible. We’ve agreed, as a matter of convenience, to measure time by a series of arbitrary units called centuries, decades, years, months, days, minutes, and seconds – historians don’t normally go beyond these” (Gaddis 27). It’s interesting to note that Gaddis focuses on the scientific ideologies and argues how historians need multiply causes for one big issue. In the next few chapters, Gaddis brings about the topic of the interdependency …show more content…
I think it’s engaging how he engages his arguments about social sciences, mathematical ideologies, and correlates them back to history. He introduces the idea of reductionism. Reductionism is the belief that you can piece together reality through variables and mathematically it’s basically like solving an equation. Gaddis states; “Nevertheless, reductionism remains the dominant mode of inquiry within the social sciences: historians are still the principal practitioners of an ecological approach to the study of human affairs. To see why, it’s worth exploring in greater detail the relationship between explanation and generalization as historians and social scientists have traditionally understood it” (Gaddis 62). Gaddis argues that historians are developed to accept tendencies and patterns. I agree when he claims that historians believe in contingent, not categorical, causation and trace processes from a knowledge of outcomes. Similar to political scientists, they need certain tools and techniques to establish conclusions on many
In succeeding chapters, Gaddis goes more into depth about the evolution of social sciences. In chapter two, he discusses the relevance of time and space. Gaddis makes many connections to geography and the patterns that we see extend throughout eras. He explains a lot about the historical method and why it’s engaged into many historical theories and concepts. He claims; “The answer isn’t as flaky as you might think, because when it comes to the dimensions of time and space with which historians have to deal, it really is tortoises all the way down: time and space are infinitely divisible. We’ve agreed, as a matter of convenience, to measure time by a series of arbitrary units called centuries, decades, years, months, days, minutes, and seconds – historians don’t normally go beyond these” (Gaddis 27). It’s interesting to note that Gaddis focuses on the scientific ideologies and argues how historians need multiply causes for one big issue. In the next few chapters, Gaddis brings about the topic of the interdependency …show more content…
I think it’s engaging how he engages his arguments about social sciences, mathematical ideologies, and correlates them back to history. He introduces the idea of reductionism. Reductionism is the belief that you can piece together reality through variables and mathematically it’s basically like solving an equation. Gaddis states; “Nevertheless, reductionism remains the dominant mode of inquiry within the social sciences: historians are still the principal practitioners of an ecological approach to the study of human affairs. To see why, it’s worth exploring in greater detail the relationship between explanation and generalization as historians and social scientists have traditionally understood it” (Gaddis 62). Gaddis argues that historians are developed to accept tendencies and patterns. I agree when he claims that historians believe in contingent, not categorical, causation and trace processes from a knowledge of outcomes. Similar to political scientists, they need certain tools and techniques to establish conclusions on many