prediction. Forecast is not the task of historian. History does not deal with unforeseeable future but with significant events as concerned man in the past.Prediction also becomes very difficult because the object of study in history, man, is both dynamic with time and space. Several efforts to radically imitate the natural scientific methodology by some historians, popularly known as the “Positivists” have disappointedly failed. The Marxist interpretation of history which has once gained currency also failed in respect to prediction. But it should be noted that even though law formulation is impossible in history, an understanding of the trends of past events is a necessary guide to the present and compass to the future. Even the so-called laws of science are statements of tendency and probability. That rain falls immediately after the gathering of cloud in the sky does not mean that rain must fall every time cloud gathers. The conclusion so formed by historian is not generalization as such but tentative inferences which requires no popularization as in natural science. Although historian can draw on the fruitful idea of scientific hypothesis, no historian can feel confident to present the same resounding result as the natural scientists or competes favourably with them in predicting future except in relatively limited and specialized area of inquiry; neither could historian in his serious efforts to present objective past re-enact the extant past like the scientists do with their experiment objects. Even if historian has all archival material on the Agbekoya crisis for instance, neither can he resurrect the war actors or the war itself, for the past is thoroughly dead and the future yet unborn. Moreover, the problem and disagreement among natural scientists are not as insoluble as among historians. For instance, it is much easier for any superior opinion or theory to provide a more comprehensive explanation and consequently supersedes the outdated theory and the scientist of the outdated theory is easily persuaded by sheer force of argument based on the universally acceptable scientific laws and procedures of enquiry. This is not always so in historical enquiry as objectivity itself is relative for historians. Not only that, historical enquiry, except events of relatively past, makes use of second hand evidences. Even documentary evidences that are classified primary are not strictly speaking primary because these commentary and reports were compiled by other people who inevitably would have selected the issues and facts of importance to them and which they considered relevant to their account. In conclusion, historians are not expected to be parochial or over-conservative in their business. The adoption of inter-disciplinary approach will definitely enhance historical enquiry. The use of scientific methodology could also complement historical methodology. Also, historians could make use of conceptual framework to organize and effectively guide their work, although care must be taken to avoid ideological prejudice.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:18:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015