37
two ends of the continuum of historical tradition. I believe that one does not have to identify
his position with either pole. My own viewpoint on the nature of history is not fixed but
remains closer to the art rather than the science
end of the continuum.
I see history more as an art than as a science in
that history has a lot more to do with art than
science in terms of the way the historian reconstructs or interprets historical events. The past
itself or historical data do not have meaning in
themselves. The past is composed of countless
numbers of disconnected historical facts. As
such, it is formless and gains meaning and form
only through the historians ability to imagine
and to see the past events and situations from
the viewpoints of historical agents. Imagination
plays a big role in establishing the relationship
between disconnected historical facts. Linking
a given event to its context or detecting a given
historical process demands thoughtful imagination. In addition to imagination, the historians
values and beliefs affect his or her selection of
the topic, questions, and interpretations, which
is another reason why I see history as an art
than a science in terms of its nature.
The ontological status of the object of historical
study, the past events, also makes history come
closer to the art end of the continuum. As
opposed to natural events, historical events do
not lend themselves to observation and repeatability because the past has gone. As a corollary,
rather than a hypothetic-deductive model of
reasoning derived from natural sciences, an
inductive along with an abductive model of
thinking and thought process is needed for the
historian to reconstruct the past. The historian
attempts to understand the past by viewing historical events within their contexts through the
eyes of the past people. The historian thinks
himself or herself into the thoughts, motivations, values, beliefs, and actions of his or her
historical agents to be able to discern how historical events developed.
Another reason why I view history as an art has
to do with my epistemological stance toward
historical knowledge. From epistemological
perspective, I view historical knowledge as a
human construction. As such, it cannot have
46