Question

answer please of the question​

Answer 1

Answer:

ABSTRACT - Historiography has not produced a single method but different traditions, and there is much disagreement about the use of history in social science. This paper discusses some of the philosophical issues regarding the historical method, and proposes an approach to the use of historical evidence in constructing and testing scientific theories.

CITATION:

A. Fuat Firat (1987) ,"Historiography, Scientific Method, and Exceptional Historical Events", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 435-438.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, 1987 Pages 435-438

HISTORIOGRAPhY, SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND EXCEPTIONAL HISTORICAL EVENTS

A. Fuat Firat, Appalachian State University

ABSTRACT -

Historiography has not produced a single method but different traditions, and there is much disagreement about the use of history in social science. This paper discusses some of the philosophical issues regarding the historical method, and proposes an approach to the use of historical evidence in constructing and testing scientific theories.

INTRODUCTION

Historians and philosophers, as well as other social scientists, have regularly mate use of historical evidence to develop their theories and positions. They have also frequently used historical facts and events to assemble support for their arguments, viewpoints, and theories. Throughout the history of such practice, however, two major streams of thought have clashed. One tried to establish a science of history by developing "respectable" rules and techniques of recording and analyzing historical facts (Collingwvood 1956, Dray 1964). The other challenged not only the possibility of a science of history (Stone 1979, White 1973), but even the utility of history in human life (Levy-Strauss 1963, Popper 1962).

Recent discussions on the scientific method, spurred by criticism of Popper's falsificationist approach, and of the positivist/rationalist method in general (Feyerabend 1975, Kuhn 1977, Lakatos 1978), have created renewed interest in the role of history in science. Empiricism, realism and relativism, three major approaches to science, all have developed their perspectives-sometimes more than one--of history (Iggers 1984). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the methodologies of historiography, discuss their relevance for the different approaches to science, and through a critique of these methods and approaches, attempt a formulation for using historical evidence for scientific purposes.

TRADITIONS OF HISTORIOGRAPhY

Whatever the tradition of historiography, the historical method represents induction over deduction, and the specific or the individual over the general. There is an agreement among the historians that each historical period and context has its own account of the causes and reasons why events occurred. These cannot be reproduced, and therefore, are not generalizable. One must treat each event in history as unique, within its own specificity (Iggers 1984).

The Annales tradition in historiography could be considered to be closest to accepting the possibility of some level of generalization from historical evidence. Annales has been identified as the empirical-analytical school of historiography. It is built on the efforts of renowned French historians whose aim was to "understand" the past. This "understanding" was a task of causal explanations for these historians. Their purpose was to develop a set of methods in gathering and analyzing historical

Answer 2

$9 \frac{1}{6} \times 120$

$\frac{55}{6} \times 120$

$55 \times 20$

$1100$

$Start \: following \: me. \: If \: this \: answer \: is \\ \: helpful \: so \: mark \: my \: answer \: as \\ \: brainliest \: answer.$