Question

difference between historical research and scientific research 4 points​

Answer 1

Answer:

which should make something vivid to the person inquiring. A young child asking why the sky is blue or why water freezes cannot be satisfied with an answer couched in scientific polysyllables that he does not understand. To be effective, an explanation must be one which is easy to understand. On the other hand, a proper explanation must rest on truth – that is, it must refer to reality. A good explanation is one which fulfils or satisfies the particular need of the inquirer and answers only that.

Let us take for example a priest enquiring about a robbery seeking an explanation from the robber. If he asks: ‘Why did you rob the bank?’, and the robber replied, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’ This explanation, for the priest’s purposes, as per the priest’s question is not an explanation fitting to him. The explanation is supposed to be directed in order to fulfill the moral reasons behind the theft. However, the explanation of the robber is one which will satisfy any practical man: Any Scientific person. This explanation of the robber’s is a scientific explanation looking more towards the practical side of the argument rather than the moral or ethical side of the argument. There is more than one way of explaining, including Common Sense, the Scientific, the Social Scientific and the Historical modes of explanation. This essay will be focusing more on the scientific and historical modes of explanation.