john lewis gaddis the landscape of history

Furthermore, he highlights the differenceīetween scientists and historians due to the fact that whereas the former Essentially, GaddisĪrgues that the job of a historian has more credibility or legitimacy to it Required to forecast or predict the outcome of events. This is unlike the social scientist who is so frequently Generalize from the knowledge of a particular outcome, deriving a process from Tend to fall into the category of ‘particular generalization’, whereby they They detail a theory after it has been stated. Undertake ‘general particularization’ particularizing for general purposes, as

Role of the historian and that of the social scientist. Through this, we are enabled to take onĪ macroscopic viewpoint as well as seeing and relating history from aĪnother clear distinction that Gaddis draws is between the History is, in fact, a representation of reality that weĪchieve by looking for larger patterns. Unlike a subject such as maths or science, there is no one definitiveĪnswer in history.

Significance with hindsight and cross-referencing its reliability against other Historian to put this perspective into broader context, analysing its Instead,Įach account simply provides a singular perspective and it is the job of the Who were present at such events, there is no one ultimate ‘correct’ history. Is easy to forget, in many circumstances nobody alive has lived through theseĮvents and thus our own understanding is based on a belief of sources andĪccounts which are not always factually correct. Important to both doubt and question the reliability of history because, as it In one sense, historiography has made me realise that it is

John lewis gaddis the landscape of history