Re: (Please) rate my argument
opus_piscator wrote: history is no more relative than any other science...
Well, history isn't a science.
opus_piscator wrote:for prejudice is like a paradigm only paradigms are universal and prejudices are particular...
This is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
opus_piscator wrote:the scientist still develops theories knowing that one day, there may very well be a paradigm shift and his theories will be abandoned... the historian knows that due to different prejudices there will be different views on how events occurred
The scientist, however, works on the assumption that any other scientist would be able to replicate the results of his/her experiments. In that sense, science is "objective," inasmuch as the results do not depend on the scientist. Such is not the case with the historian who, as you point out, knows that such scientific "objectivity" is unattainable.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace