A historian must combine the rigour of the scientist with the imagination of the artist.” To what extent, then, can a historian be confident about his or her conclusions?

... History is an account of what happened in the past. It provides an explanation of what happed in the past, so we can learn from our ancestors, about their successes and mistakes. What type of knowledge do we gain from this? Is it the objective knowledge of a scientist or the subjective knowledge of an artist? Perhaps it is a mixture of both scientific and artistic, or, in extension objective and subjective knowledge? But, then to what extent can one accept a historian's conclusions as the truth? First of all to define the terms so that we can see the differences. Although most people around us know what knowledge is , it is a very hard thing to define. Knowledge is often defined as expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. It can be what is known in a certain field or in total; facts or information.

want to read more? →