What Similarities and Differences Are There Between Historical and Scientific Explanations?

It is in our human nature to explain e genuinelything. by nature, on that point argon many slipway of knowing. Application of these, often defined by current methodology, are frequently classified into areas of knowlight-emitting diodege. Therefore it is natural for matchless to consider equivalentities and differences within the process of attaining knowledge in different areas of knowledge. When the method forming scientific and historic models for human understanding of the world are examined, many similarities kitty be come uponn. These differences and similarities can also be infern when products of explanations are assessed.When scientific and diachronic explanations are compared matchless can see many similarities. Empirical express are utilise in both scientific and historic explanations. For example, scientists cast off found a viable model of Deoxyribonucleic Acid ( deoxyribonucleic acid) heel counter through and through data-based cause. In 1958, Matthew Meselsohn and Franklin Stahl devised and executed an experiment to study DNA replication1. They connect two isotopes of nitrogen to each strand of DNA to determine what proportions of the isotope were yield in DNA strands aft(prenominal) multiple replication process.They observed that after(prenominal) one replication of DNA, each new molecule of DNA possess one strand with the heavy isotopes of nitrogen. This proof showed that the replication of DNA is semiconservative the theme of copying via temp after-hours2. The uptake of empirical evidence helped to explain the DNA replication process, even though one could non see the actual strands of DNA replicating. Looking at historic explanations one can see similar applications of empirical evidence. For example, historians such as John Lewis Gaddis came up with theories about the frozen war.From observing policies of the United States and the Soviet Union, Gaddis ask formulated theories about spheres of influences, and how these spheres of influences led to rising tension between the two super powers and eventually to the raw war. i whitethorn conclude that this explanation was formed by analyzing historical evidence such as foreign policies at the time, internal documents, and oecumenical events. The process of analyzing these sources produce empirical evidence. The use of empirical evidence is used to explain a point in time that one cannot fuck off the second time.Similarities also exist in the limitation of scientific and historical explanations. If one were to use invalid empirical data then the closing mop up would be false. For example, it is known that all matter is equally naturalized by gravity. Yet if one were to observe objects falling in a normal environment it would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that all objects fall at the same rate. It is difficult for 1 Damon, Alan, ruttish McGonegal, Patricia Tosto, and William Ward. Higher Level Biology. Harlow Heinemann Internat ional, 2007. Print. 2 ibid one to conceive that a persist ball and a feather would fall at the same rate.Naturally one would reach the conclusion that a lead ball waterfall faster than a feather which is essentially false unless observed in a vacuum. Also if one were to apply laws of Newton, that are constructed by empirical data, to subatomic particles that are moving near speed of light one would reach false conclusions. This is because concepts such as gravity appear to be negligible when particles are moving at near speed of light. In history one must often rely on the use of evidence such as artifacts, eyewitness accounts, and formal documentation to understand knowledge.For example, empirical evidence such as the carved face of the abundant Sphinx of Giza can provide how the creator of the statue looked worry. If the creator decided to enhance the facial nerve features of the sphinx a historian would lead to the false conclusion about the style of the creator. Some key differences can be seen in historical and scientific explanations. Historical explanations are mainly open for interpretation. Historical evidence whitethorn be chosen and aggregated in certain ways to adjudge ones argument. As a student of history I constantly constellation facts in accordance to my thesis. The thesis comes from my own beliefs.For example, such thesis is claiming that differing ideologies play a major role in the development of the Cold War. nigh scholars like J. L. Gaddis and Sewell agree that ideology played only a pocket-size role in the development of the Cold War in the late 1940s. However, I can claim that ideology played a very important role in the development of the Cold War and stick in my evidence to support the argument. Unlike most light my explanation of ideologies in the Cold War does no need to be seizeed by the community. In history two or much different explanations may exist and both would be valid.In science, most explanations are not r egarded as valid unless the majority of the scientific community accept the explanation. One salient example of this is the find and explanation of cold fusion. In contact of 1989 Martin Fleischmann, one of the worlds leading electro-chemists, and Stanley Pons announced cold fusion3. Nuclear energy, like that which power the sun produced at room temperature, giving off more energy than what was originally put in. This promised to produce energy that is clean and cost-effective ending energy problems such as global warming4.Immediately after the announcement prestigious labs such as Massachusetts Institute of engine room (MIT) and California Institute of Technology (CALTECH) rushed to produce the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons. 5 However, MIT and CALTECH did not produced the same results and could not come to accept explanation. In science, generally, if one cannot reproduce the same result from experiments the explanation is regarded as invalid. Therefor in science only one 3 Cetta, Denise S. Cold coalition Is Hot once more 60 Minutes CBS give-and-take. fracture News Headlines Business, Entertainment & World News CBS News. 9 Apr. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. 4 ibid 5 ibid explanation can exist. However, one can claim that similarities exist in scientific and historical explanations because whatsoever scientific explanations are rejected by the community even though they are true. In this case there would be two scientific explanations but one would be invalid. In the case of Cold Fusion it was later discovered that even though nuclear fusion was winning place, results were always varied. The scientific community originally rejected the explanation and discovery because they were unable to reproduce the results of Fleischmann and Pons.Both scientific and historical explanations are generally supplied by empirical evidence. In science one draws explanations from empirical evidence according to predefined rules. For example, a banish charge is r epelled from the center of what is named an atom, thence something must exist in the center of the atom and it must suck a positive charge. This explanation is drawn from the rule positive and negative deflect. In history, however, there are no such evident rules. A key difference that is evident in scientific and historical explanations are the extent to which one can draw empirical evidence.In science one must abide by precise rules weather to accept or reject empirical evidence to support explanations. In history, however, there are no such rules one must follow otherwise than considering the validity of evidence. Some people, such as Henry Gee, an editor of the prestigious science journal Nature, claim that historical explanations do not have similarities with scientific explanations. they historical explanations can never be tested by experiments, and so they are unscientific. . . . No science can ever be historical6. This suggests that unless the explanation is adequatel y tested it is not science.One can see that this is true to a certain extent. As said before, science follow certain rules in which the extent to which one can extrapolate evidence is limited. This generally leads to explanations that are much more integrated and logical. However when considering scientific explanations that cannot be tested in a laboratory that are generally regarded as valid in the scientific community, one can see that they bare similarities to historical explanations. An example of this is the asteroid-impact hypothesis, which explain the fossil records of the dinosaurs in hurt of an impact of large asteroid.This cannot obviously be tested in a laboratory, but provide a viable explanation. It is evident that historical and scientific explanations have many similarities and differences. Use of empirical evidence is present in both historical and scientific explanations. They both have the same limitations when exploitation empirical evidence. Similarities and d ifferences are also present in the community aspect. By seeing what similarities and differences exist in science and history it is evident how limitations and advantages of ways of knowing play a role in their respected explanations. Cleland, chirp E. Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Print. whole kit and boodle Cited Cetta, Denise S. Cold Fusion Is Hot Again 60 Minutes CBS News. Breaking News Headlines Business, Entertainment & World News CBS News. 19 Apr. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. . Cleland, chant E. Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Print. Damon, Alan, horny McGonegal, Patricia Tosto, and William Ward. Higher Level Biology. Harlow Heinemann International, 2007. Print.