A friend has an anthropology degree. She aspires to be an anthropologist some day (maybe).
I, Riley Paterson, on the other hand, aspire to be a historian some day (maybe).
Tonight we had a conversation that I've tried to have before.
What is the difference between history and the natural sciences?
Why does history need to establish itself as methodologically distinct?
All of it boils down to a personal question for me.
Why am I so hostile to the natural sciences and, in particular, attempts to apply natural scientific methods to the study of human life?
I have some deep seated conviction that human life needs to be analyzed in its own terms, and cannot be reduced to biological process.
Well then why can't I just declare the autonomy of history and leave it at that? Why does the vindication of human/historical modes of thought have to come along with hostility towards the methods of the natural sciences?
The position of the natural sciences is one of such privilege that I don't think historical methods can be successfully vindicated merely by championing them.
They need to be freed from the clutches of the natural sciences.
The natural sciences, unfortunately, are like an epistemological bully.
How would most people respond to the assertion: 'The natural scientific method is the only reliable way to arrive at truth.' I'm not sure. You tell me.
But I imagine a lot of people might agree, and even if they didn't, could they explain to you how there were other ways of arriving at truth?
This is probably the biggest issue that I'd love to tackle.
This is the issue that I am most passionate about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment