Jansen B.

Lecitona GERPHIS A72

11922028 July 27, 2020

Takdang Aralin #1

History is a study of knowledge that relentlessly studies the past, making it an

academic discipline. It is a specialty that researches, studies, and examines historical ore
to better understand our present and prepare for the future. History is considered as a
‘discipline’ due to the fact the it is a field to be studied objectively – it depends on the
intention to acquire truthful knowledge.

To ask whether ‘History is a discipline of Art or Science’ is a controversial dispute

that boggles the mind. In the continuous research unto how we must consider science –
an Art or Science, results and findings always relate to science and art but does not cover
its entirety. To define its extensivity is nearly impossible, but in the simplest sense: History
is a science since it accumulates knowledge and it is an Art due to its association with the
humanities and literature. To look at it more on a deeper level and narrow lenses, the
method in obtaining historical facts and fragments are of supposed to Science. Although,
to study people and civilizations from the past and produce a narrative account for
publication is to be of relative to the Arts.

Words like ‘History’ and ‘past’ are used as if they are interchangeable. They seem
similar in meaning but are not in application of these terms. Each living person in the
world is accounted for his or her own past. We, as living developed creatures with the
ability to understand and store information, all have past that we had gone through and
experienced that we can recall and remember as we continue to live and journey our
existence. Past talks about evets that has transpired in our daily lives. Alan Munslow, in
his book entitled ‘The Future of History’, elucidates the fundamental difference between
Past and History. He accounts that Ontological dissonance’ serves up the case of it.
History is defined to be the reconstructed version with the events that has transpired in
our lives. The only way that we will be able to assume reconstruction is that we must have
proof of existence to our claims or simply ‘records. We are only able to promote our pasts
into history, when we have the events in our lives on record that are considered to be
evidences to apprehend its verity.

Due to lack of technological resources, recordings and/or proofs of existence of a

historic event is limited. Historians find it difficult to create a narrative for what has
transpired due to the fact that the only available historical ores are broken down into
pieces and fragments. ‘History as past actuality’ refers to the entirety of what had
happened. This makes reference to how everyone in the world has their own past. This
is believed to be absolute and objective since it refers to reality. ‘History as record’ refers
only to the pieces and fragments that are found upon investigation in the process of
gathering information. These are the recorded past that we can see in diaries, memoirs
or even artifacts. History as record are deemed to be relative and subjective for this is just
a version of what really occurred in the past. Sometimes these fragments are just the only
surviving part of the observes part of the whole. ‘Written History’, on the other hand, talk
about the reconstructed narrative of what had pan out during the process of investigation.
With the facts gathered in the process integrated with the interpretation of these facts, we
are able to create the written history. According to Gottschalk in his book ‘Understanding
History,’ Written History is only the historian’s interpretation and expression of the
understood part of the credible of the credible part of the discovered part of history-as-
record.

In the process of reconstructing narratives of the past, we encounter the process

of gathering substantial, significant and notable information in relation to the past we
would want to learn more about. As we dwell more in the process of gathering information,
we would come across the word sources. Sources are deemed as information regarding
the subjects. These sources pertain to materials that Historians uses as part of their
discovery. As we identify sources, we must know how to distinguish and categorize these
into primary and secondary. Primary sources are information coming from a person who
experienced the event firsthand. In contrast to primary sources, Secondary sources, on
the other hand, are information coming from a person who did not directly experience the
event. These being said, Primary sources are stronger candidates when it comes to
credibility. It holds an edge over secondary sources just because someone would have a
better recollection of the events if he/she experienced it firsthand rather than someone
who was just told about the event per se.

To be able to understand the events from the past, historians undergo several
processes to which they take into accounts as they reconstruct narratives regarding the
past. Historical Method is the imminent process in History that relies hugely on the data
gathered and collected. In this process, historians laboriously examining these historical
records. It analyzes the particulars and examines in thoroughly. Historiography is
commonly known as the “writing if the history.” It is the process unto which we give
interpretation from the facts that we have collected after the thorough process of Historical
Method. Historiography is the Imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived
from the process called Historical method (Gottschalk, 1950). In this process we rely on
the notion of verisimilitude – to be able to get as close an approximation to the truth about
the past as constant correction of his mental images will allow, at the same time
recognizing that truth has in fact eluded him (Gottschalk, 1950)

In the world of Sciences, they particularly use the scientific or empirical knowledge
to attain and verify the available knowledge. This process allows us to make observations,
tests, and experiments the data to formulate the output we are looking for. Although this
may be an effective way to attain information, the empirical process is not suitable for
reconstructing narratives of the past due to the fact that historians who study the past
events are not existing in the right historical time and space. In the Discipline of History,
historians use the process of Historical Method to acquire necessary answers. As we
dwell more on Historical Methods, we would learn that the first step is to ‘dig up
evidence.’ As we dig up evidence, one must keep in mind that the evidence that we are
looking for must be in relation with our topic. After this, we move on to the second step –
the ‘checking of sources.’ Sources of the chosen matter could be anything that is why
we must be able to inspect these sources and scrutinize them through and through. Next
step available for the Historical Method is the ‘checking of sources’ reliability.’ Not all
sources are reliable enough to be included in the investigation process. We must be able
to prudently assess sources to find out their validity, dependability, and authenticity.
Moving forward is to ‘judge the importance of each evident.’ In this step, it is necessary
to be able to sort out the necessity and significance of these sources to the initial topic.
Continuing the process of Historical Method, historians must ‘build an idea of what
happened.’ Historians are equipped with the necessary experience and foundation of
knowledge to create a narrative of what happened - historically speaking. In doing so,
one must acquire critical thinking and laborious analysis. The study of History as a
discipline does not only sparks a different kind of creativity in an individual and impels
profound criticality, but also molds one to be attentive, aware of one’s surroundings, and
to be vigilant.

In the Historical Process, one must go through the process of checking the
sources’ reliability and credibility. This is due to the fact that sources can come from
anyone and anywhere, that is why one must be able to sort out necessary and substantial
data that would help in narrating an accurate account for the past events that had
transpired. The process of evaluating the sources hopes to obtain a decision whether a
source is considered to be trustworthy. In the process of evaluating the sources, one must
not discredit or disregard quickly the sources that has been collected. Historians must
sort these sources out with regards to the degrees of its reliability. To be able to attain
verisimilitude, historians must analyze and inspect time and time again the sources to
check the significance of these data. In checking the sources’ credibility, it must satisfy
the following stipulations: a)Was the ultimate source of the detail able to tell the truth?,
b)Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?, c)Is the primary witness accurately
reported with regard to the detail under examination?, d)Is there any independent
corroboration of the detail under examination?.

In the ‘ability to tell the truth’ phase, we question three aspects which are:
Witness Nearness to the Event, Competence, and Degree of Attention. In learning the
credibility of the document, historians also question the competency and willing of the
witness to tell the truth, and whether consciously or unconsciously bring bias to the
table. Next would be to determine the accuracy of the report by meticulously and
scrupulously checking the details under examination. Lastly, historians check whether
there is independent corroboration of the details.

Although different sources are deemed and accepted to be credible enough to be

part of the facts considered in this Historical Method, other documents are given
precedence over the other. In order to assess which to document must be given
precedence, historians must compare documents regarding their remoteness from the
event in time and space of his recording of it. Also, they one must ask the motive and
purpose why the author made the recording. In addition, authorities must assess who the
viewers of the documents/recordings must be. Lastly, documents/recordings
written/recorded by a person with a greater knowledge/expertise on the topic, must be
highlighted over other documents.

The importance of History is one topic we usually hear from time to time. People
dispute whether History is as significant as it should be. In actuality, History is a discipline
often disregarded by the general public. Notions that History must not be studied since it
is already from the past and those lessons from the must cannot be applied in our modern
time continues to plague the society. In addition, many people nowadays set aside
learning History due to the fact that it is regarded as unnecessary and unsubstantial.
Consequently, the interest in History as a discipline continues to decline over the years.

Although, people nowadays with their forwardly thinking must learn how to be able
to look back in the past. There are several reasons why we must continue to study History.
First and foremost, we must understand that the past, present, and the future is always
interconnected with each other. With this, History must be given importance since it
includes reasons and stories as to why our present is what it is now. It allows learners to
absorb historical events leading to what our society is at the moment. In the simplest
sense, History helps us understand our present. Studying history allows us to make
changes and alterations in order for us to avoid the flaws and inadequacy of the past.
 History also challenges us to better understand our society and the people. History
stores information regarding how society and its people behave in a particular setting and
how it came to be. Armored with great apprehension with regards to the operations of
society, learners of history are able to conduct necessary actions that are suitable in
societal functions. Through history, we are able to circumvent from social disputes; thus,
making the society harmonious for its people to live in.

As we carefully unpack our History, we are able to gain knowledge and appreciate
more the sense of liberty and self-governance that we enjoy. Through history, we are
armored with the sense of identity, equipped by acknowledging what the people before
us had gone through. By these we are able to grasp the idea of a cohesive nation; thus,
enriching and igniting the sense of pride and nationalism in each and every one of us.

History is a vital part in keeping the nation-state coordinated and infrangible. What
many do not know is the fact that there are societal issues that our country is currently
facing that has been deeply rooted from the past. This is why History is valuable in the
process of coming up with a solution to these problems. In the process of uncovering
solutions for societal issues in the country, we must acknowledge firsthand that these are
profoundly embedded in the History and must try to resolve its initial cause. To be able to
completely address the problem, incorporating the study of History is essential. It detects
where and how it started and assist in devising a response for societal affair.
Source:
Gottschalk, L (1950) Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method.
New York City: Bonzoi Books - Alfred A. Knoff