Evans traces the development of history as a discipline between c. 1960 and 2000. Underlying these changes is the constant fact that history deals with -- by definition -- what no longer exists and therefore can't be seen directly. In your opinion, does this fact weaken Carr's belief that history should be regarded as a science? If so, why? If not, why not?
Sunday, 25 May 2014
History should be regarded as a science?
Evans traces the development of history as a discipline between c. 1960 and 2000. Underlying these changes is the constant fact that history deals with -- by definition -- what no longer exists and therefore can't be seen directly. In your opinion, does this fact weaken Carr's belief that history should be regarded as a science? If so, why? If not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment