John Lewis Gaddis The Landscape Of History Analysis

Superior Essays
In the book, The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis compares the study of history to the study of natural science. He presents many convincing observations about how the two fields of study are alike. In addition to informing his readers about the similarities between the natural sciences and history, he also makes a case that history is very different from social sciences, which it is often grouped with.
Throughout his book, Gaddis presents his readers with many examples of how history is like the natural sciences and how the natural sciences are becoming more like history. The most obvious reason as to why the two are alike is that they both deal with facts. History is not something that is made up, it is based on events and situations
…show more content…
One of the most significant differences is that there is no universal truth in history as there is in the natural sciences. In the natural sciences when something is discovered, the experiment is repeated several times by multiple people to be certain that the findings were true and not a fluke. Once the discoveries are proven, it becomes the accepted fact and that fact is most of the time undisputed, but in history more is left up to interpretation. An important event that happened can have many differing views on how it occurred and what were the major influences that caused it. “It’s part of historical consciousness to learn the same thing: that there is no “correct” interpretation of the past, but that the act of interpreting is itself a vicarious enlargement of experience from which you can benefit” (Gaddis, 10). Even though there is no single truth that is agreed on, one can learn from the experiences and knowledge that comes from attempting to find the truth. Another important difference that Gaddis writes about is that some natural scientists are able to repeat their experiments in order to determine the truth and what is happening, but historians do not have the ability to do that. He writes, “we cannot relive, retrieve, or rerun it as we might some laboratory experiment or computer simulation” (Gaddis, 3). He tells his readers that historians can only study something that has already happened, so they lack the ability of scientists to be able to repeat these events in order to further their study of them. Although he points out that historians cannot create the exact experiment he also mentions that there are certain subfields in the natural sciences that are also unable to recreate the exact conditions of the time and place for use in their studies. These natural scientists include, paleontologists, geologists, and astrologists whose studies focus on things

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It is because of the frightening thought that we as individuals can never truly know everything there is to know about the universe and the world we live in. If we as individuals cannot know everything, we would feel safer if at least some person out there did. Then that person could make the more informed, correct decisions in regards to important matters. This wish to believe that someone in the world knows “everything” is what helps to fuel the false belief that “Science can prove anything.” Scientist may not come right out and say it, but if they present their theories and hypothesis in a manner intended to convince the general public, without first cautioning the possible fallibility of their statements, the scientist are, in essences, pretending to know it all. It is vital to remember that scientist are fallible human beings just like us, they are not some unbiased enlightened people in white coats.…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A hypothesis is not an “educated guess”. It is much more than that. Scientists do not “guess”, they predict based off of past experiments and their own knowledge. If hypotheses were guesses, then experiments would not work and nothing would be learned from scientific observations and experiments. Many people confuse hypothesis, theory, and law.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Popper, any theory can be proven false through empirical evidence or experimental data but cannot be proven true. In this view, any theory is always in the state of being not yet disproved. However, Kuhn thinks that in normal science the theory is not questioned until “the crisis stage” in the Kuhn Cycle. Kuhn claims that scientists does not try to refute their theories instead they try to prove them and seek evidence for their theories whereas Popper claims that scientists try to…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Aside from that, Popper's main objection was that one could not test all proposed predictions of a theory, and even if that was possible, the more confirmations or rejection that arise from empirical experimentation are not definitive and prone to bias. This model allows the scientists more of an opportunity to look for predictions that will be confirmed in an effort to support a desired outcome. Popper's solution is to select predictions that are least likely to be confirmed, and then attempt to falsify a theory. Failure to falsify a theory serves as endorsement of the theory.3 Since law claims can be falsified but not verified, Popper concluded that the way to truth is indirect, by elimination of falsehood. This allows for science to produce errors and mistakes, certainly not a negative thing in the eyes of every true scientist.…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The debate if psychology is a science is not a new one. Many influential individuals, such as Galileo and Kant, also believed that psychology would not be considered as a science “because of its concern with subjective experience” (Hergenhahn, & Henley, 2014, p. 6). Science is based off of scientific methods and laws which are organized around empirical facts, however there are some concepts that are extremely difficult to provide facts on such as “free…

    • 1788 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One reason for denial, Keith B. Miller says, is that the scientific concession on climate change “is often rejected because of a perception that the majority is driven by social, political, or religious motives” (220). Because the social world is driven by these factors many believe that the scientific world is as well. While scientists are human and are not immune to ulterior motives, the intense verification process that studies go through insure accurate unbiased…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is what most people tend to assume, a scientist discovered a theory to explain a phenomenon, so surely it is correct. However, this is not always the case. In today’s time, of course we regard all our current popular theories as true, but time does tend to take a toll on this. The history of science provides us with countless examples of “scientific theories which were empirically successful in their day but later turned out to be false,” such as Earth-centered universe beliefs (Okasha 60). We won’t be around to know if our beliefs are the way things really are, and we can never know for sure what the future will discover.…

    • 1003 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science involves systematic inquiry into the natural world which aims to organize, predict and explain empirical data. One strength is that this definition not only defines science, but mentions what science aims for. A weakness this definition has is it is too broad with the term "the natural word". Scientism says that unless one can test it scientifically then its not worth anything. Many people affirm this way of thinking because maybe like skeptics they seek certainty in their beliefs and they feel security in this way of thought.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But it is by a collection of this assumption that makes the science community an invalid representation as to how shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.an assumption, something someone just assumed. No one on this earth can attest to the origination of the earth, because they were not there to gather the evidence and facts. But it is by a collection of this assumption that makes the science community an invalid representation as to how shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge. Science groups have a hard time explaining life events and so therefore it would be unreliable. One’s personal knowledge would be…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is illogical to believe that earth and all the creatures here just evolved from practically nothing without divine intervention or some other power. Science depends “on empirical evidence and testable explanations”, but when those do not work and there is no logical explanation for things then what (Institute of Medicine 12)? That is when creationism seems much more believable. Schools should teach that when science does not have an answer, it is because there are other forces at work in our…

    • 834 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays