Differences between historical and scientific explanations

Differences between historical and scientific explanations Topic: -What are the similarities and differences between historical and scientific explanations? An explanation is one which is ‘rooted or firmly embedded in psychology and in reality. An explanation is one 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 thats where the money is. This explanation, for the priests purposes, as per the priests 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 robbers 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. Science is a way of acquiring human knowledge. The three essential aims of science are prediction, control and explanation. However, the greatest of these is scientific explanation. Scientific explanations are nothing but tentative proposals. They are offered in hope of capturing the best outlook on the matter. Scientific explanations however, are subject to evaluation as well as modification. They are valid deductive arguments whose conclusion is the event to be explained. The Scientific mode of explanation is more properly named the nomological-deductive type. It is also known as the DN account. This means that the explanation is deduced from law-like statements (from the Greeknomos= a law). For example, there is the law, or universal hypothesis, that whenever the Earth passes between the Sun and the Moon there is an eclipse of the Moon. Thus any particular eclipse may be explained as an instance of that general law. The general rule that provides the explanation is strengthened if it can be shown to be consistent with a more fundamental law. Historical explanation is the explanation of certain events which have taken place in reality. A historical explanation, in general terms is the explanation of a circumstance in the context of history.   Historical explanations give causes of outcomes in particular cases. They are empirical, but can be altered. These explanations are limited to the past. A useful method for historical explanation is analysis in terms of power. This means assessing the power, or ability to affect the outcome in question, of focal actors and entities, determining their use of that power, and, perhaps, accounting for that use. The first of these depends, in part, methodologically on deductive theory: the power of one entity depends on what others can be expected to do, and theory can help assess that. The second is mostly historical accounting, but may need theory to determine what goals are feasible for actors. In the third, theory such as rational choice may be especially useful when the power-holdi ng actor is an aggregate of individuals. There are a few ways of knowing through which these explanations, namely scientific and historical explanations can be deciphered: Perception, Reason and emotion. One example in order o decipher and differentiate both types of explanation is the mystery of one of the most puzzling monuments of the world, the â€Å"Stonehenge† present in Great Britain. There have been many theories, posed by many, historians and scientists alike, all from different walks of life. These theories, as expected, happen to be as contrasting to each other as possible. However, all these theories are based on nothing but, ones perception, reason and emotion.   A persons perception of different events depends on the state in which his mind is at that particular point of time. Not only this, but also depends on the way the person is brought up in his life, the place, etc. A person who is brought up with one particular set of values will have a different perception from one who has been brought up elsewhere with another set of values. There have been various theories relating the existence of this monument to God and aliens. Some theories even spoke about wizards! However, there have been more relevant theories which justify its existence as an astronomical laboratory, a burial ground, etc. In this case, a person, who has been brought up with different religious and mythological values inculcated with him, would obviously believe in the existence of God and attempt to justify the existence of the Stonehenge as that of a temple of God. However, an atheist would not do so since he does not believe in the existence of God and wouldnt think twice before rejecting the idea of the existence of God. This would be the cause of a reason or an emotion. A religious person may be one of the many who can be termed as a person capable of meting out a historical explanation. However, this person may be able to provide a historical explanation for the existence of this monument, only if he is able one of the three methods of historical explanation. Historians may believe in its existence by using the observations made from the archeological evidence which has been discovered. It is emotion which brings out the fear in their heart and it is this emotion which affects ones perception. When one is brought up with religious values inculcated in him, the priests or the higher order of the temple he goes to would probably build inside his heart, the element of fear of the almighty God. It is this fear itself which would lead a person like this to believe that monuments like the Stonehenge may be temples of the Almighty God built by God himself in order to conduct various rituals; a thought, which would most likely, immediately be cast away by an atheist or a person who is highly practical. However, this historical explanation provided here would not fulfill the question as intended by the inquirer. Again, it depends on the reason and the perception of the inquirer, whether he would believe in the existence of God or not? Now, let us focus on the view of the scientific explanation about the purpose of the Stonehenge. A scientist, archeologist or a historian may clearly believe that this monument had been of some major significance to the people of that society. There are many theories which have been put forth by these scientists, archeologists and so on. However, no one of these theories has been proved true. Again, what one perceives to be true would depend on the emotion, and how one is brought up. A person with scientific beliefs may be considered as a practical person who, unlike a religious man would not readily believe in the fact that this was built by the Almighty God and was meant to serve Him. He would not hesitate to believe that it may have been a holy place of rituals, but would surely cast away the idea that it was a temple built by the Gods, for the Gods. However, he would be the one to put forth the theories that these were built for their astronomical significance of looking at the m oon by observing the arrangements of the ruins, which are factual; an astronomical observatory in order to mark significant events on the prehistoric calendar. This is one explanation which would both suit the purpose of the question put forth and would fulfill the inquirers desire. This, here is a scientific explanation. Hence, we have seen as to how different scientific and historical explanations are in this case. Also, we have seen similarities as to how both the types of explanations are based on observations and as to how both the explanations serve to answer the question which has been put forward. Now, let us take another example, this time, about the occurrences of daily life. Belief in superstitions is one which has been highly debated upon by people who believe in them and the people who think that it is solely a coincidence. People say, â€Å"When a black cat crosses your path, it means that you will face bad luck in the day.† If, by any chance, this happens to be true at one instance, it means that it has occurred in reality, in the context of history. Hence, one can provide a historical explanation justifying the omen of bad luck only because the cat crossed the path. This explanation was based on facts which were purely based on facts occurring in reality. A historical explanation is supposed to be empirical, it may be altered. However, the other form of explanation to be discussed is scientific explanation. A scientific explanation is one which is always open to change, unlike historical explanations and the theory or the explanation has to stand the test of tim e. A man providing a scientific explanation would only say that the person who faced ill-luck was only a result of the person believing in the superstition and being too self-conscious about the incident. If he were to talk about a person who does not believe in superstitions, all he would say is that the incident was a matter of pure coincidence. The examples above, about both the existence of an epic and the amount of truth in a superstition would only serve the purpose of showing us the differences between historical and scientific explanations. The key similarities that exist between both the explanations are that both the explanations are based purely on facts only that a historical explanation is based in the context of history and scientific explanation is based on theory, and the results of the thesis. Another similarity is that both the types of explanations serve as an explanation to the same question though in different contexts. The primary differences are that while historical explanation is based on facts occurring in reality, a scientific explanation is one which is based on research and accumulated facts which are obtained as results. Hence, we have seen and examined the differences between historical and scientific explanation with the use of appropriate examples.  

Is Economics as old as the first Transaction between Men? Essay

To what extent do you agree with this statement? It can be said that economics is as old as the first transaction between men and I completely agree with this statement. It must, however, be noted that the importance of economics in people’s lives has greatly increased over the ages. In days gone by, other things such as religion and tradition had greater influence on people’s lives, whereas today, people are more influenced by economics. As a result of the ever-changing nature of economics, the economic laws that existed in the past would be obsolete in today’s society. In order to have a better understanding of this statement it is important to, firstly, have knowledge of the history of economics and also to study the evidence that both supports and opposes the statement. According to Robert Heilbroner â€Å"†¦the perpetuation of the human animal becomes a remarkable social feat. So remarkable, in fact, society’s existence hangs by a hair†¦ in a word, if any of a thousand intertwined tasks of society should fail to get done-industrial life would soon become hopelessly disorganised.† He then goes on to outline the three ways man has found to guard against this calamity. The first of these is the continuity of society by organising it around tradition. This method consists of the various roles in society being handed down from generation to generation according to the society’s customs. The cycle of son following his father’s occupation keeps the necessary positions in the society full and prevents chaos. The second way in which the problem can be solved is through command, meaning an authoritarian rule in order to ensure that tasks are completed. For many centuries, man has dealt with the challenge of survival through either of these solutions. The third and final way is the market system. The market system is â€Å"†¦an astonishing arrangement in which society assured its own continuance by allowing each individual to do exactly as he saw fit-provided he follow a central guiding rule.† The rule being incredibly simple â€Å"†¦each should do what was to his best monetary advantage.† It was the appeal of monetary gain, rather than tradition or command that leads the great majority to do their job and today keeps our society together. Economics can be defined as â€Å"the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.† Using this definition it is easy to see the validity in the statement â€Å"economics is as old as the first transaction between men.† The objective of man and most other living creatures is to survive. The continued existence of man demonstrates man’s ability to achieve this goal. With the limited resources available to man and his unlimited wants, in order to survive, cooperation within a society is required. This cooperation has ever been present, as trade is thought to have occurred as long ago as 3000BC. This trade is the early form of economics. On the other hand, it can be said that in the past, economics has not existed. This is because in the past there was no scarcity and the available resources were adequate for sustaining our very basic lifestyles. We were influenced by tradition and command and this paved the way in which our society was run. As Heilbroner says â€Å"†¦as long as the problem [of survival] was handled by tradition or command, it never gave rise to that special field of study called ‘economics.’† However, when the market system came into play and overran tradition and command, economics was developed. â€Å"When society no longer obeyed a ruler’s dictates, who was to say where it would end? It was the economists who undertook to explain this puzzle.† Although, it was very possibly not realised back then, it can be said that economics is as old as the first transaction between men. The importance of economics certainly has increased over the years and the role it plays in people’s lives now is greater than it did in the past. However, I believe that economics has always been one of the key components of man’s survival, whether today or 3000BC. Of course in the past people had wants and need just like we do today and therefore the methods, such as trading, that they used to obtain these things fall under the category of economics.

How Texas Changed U.S. History Essay

The United States of America is the world’s leading super power. Through the years, there have been many events that occurred which contributed to the kind of nation it is at present. It is a country with a rich and extensive history behind it. One of the significant aspects in the history of the United States is the state of Texas. Texas played a crucial role in the development of the nation. This research paper aims to discuss how the independence of Texas and its membership and re-admittance to the Union changed the course of U. S. history. Texas was originally occupied by Indians before the 16th century (â€Å"Timeline†). Numerous tribes of Native Americans resided in what is now known as Texas, and they were the inhabitants before the place was discovered by the Spaniards (Calvert & Doughty 10). For more than a century, Texas was under Spanish control, as it was considered a territory of the Spanish Empire (Calvert & Doughty 1). The Spanish explorers first arrived in Texas in 1519, and Alfonso Alvarez de Pineda was the first one to explore the place and map the shoreline (Calvert & Doughty 10; â€Å"Timeline†). After de Pineda, there were other Spanish expeditions and eventually, missions were sent in Texas (Calvert & Doughty 11). In February 18, 1685, Frenchman Robert Cavalier, Sieur de La Salle claimed Texas for France by setting up Fort St. Louis in Matagorda Bay (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Timeline†). La Salle was soon killed, but the Spanish were threatened by the actions of the French (Calvert & Doughty 11). As a result, the Spaniards eliminated the French port and established more missions. In addition, Spanish towns were built in Texas, such as San Antonio, Goliad and Nacogdoches (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Timeline†). However, the 19th century ushered in a time of struggle for Spain, as it began to lose its power over Texas due to the expeditions of Americans (Calvert & Doughty 11). In 1810, a group led by Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla attempted to free Mexico from Spanish authority. The plan failed, but it caused restlessness in Texas and Mexico. In 1813, Mexican Bernardo Gutierrez and American Augustus Magee occupied three Spanish towns in an effort to topple the Spanish authority in Texas (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Timeline†). They failed. Spain soon realized that the Spanish settlements in Texas were not enough to secure it from the threat of other countries (Calvert & Doughty 11). The Spanish authorities thought that an increase in population was needed. American Moses Austin asked permission from the Spaniards in Mexico to be allowed to stay in Texas; this request was continued by his son Stephen after his death. In 1821, Mexico became independent from Spain, and Texas became a part of Mexico (Calvert & Doughty 11; Perry 505). The Mexican government agreed to Austin’s plea, and they had begun to let foreigners settle in Texas. In 1836, 50,000 people had resided in Texas; 20,000 of which were from the United States (Calvert & Doughty 11; Perry 505). Most of the Americans in Texas were cotton planters, and went there because of land opportunities (Perry 505). Moreover, these people brought slaves with them to help them with cotton cultivation (Calvert & Doughty 11). However, Mexico met slavery with opposition, as the country abolished it in 1824 (Calvert & Doughty 11; Perry 505). The Mexicans soon realized that they were being outnumbered, so they resorted to efforts that would curb the number of Americans in Texan soil (Perry 505). The Mexican authorities stopped immigration from the United States and banned arrival of slaves (Calvert & Doughty 11; Perry 505; â€Å"Timeline†). This move angered the Texans, but the tension continued to increase with the dictatorship of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Calvert & Doughty 11; Perry 505). The discontent of the people increased with the imposed customs duties collection (â€Å"Revolution†). In an effort to gain their independence, the Texans started the revolution on October 2, 1835 (â€Å"Revolution†;â€Å"Timeline†). The revolution began in Gonzales, Texas (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Revolution†; â€Å"Timeline†). Texans repulsed the Mexican troops in Gonzales, and emerged victorious in the first battle in the struggle for independence (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Revolution†). The succeeding battles were also won by the Texan forces (Calvert & Doughty 11). In November 3, 1835, there was a convention in which a provisional government, based on a document called the Organic Law, was set up by the Americans in Texas (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Timeline†). During the said convention, the Texans held an election for gubernatorial and council positions. On March 2, 1836, American Texans declared their independence from Mexico and established a constitution which allowed slavery; David Burnet was the provisional president while Sam Houston was the Texas troops’ commander in chief (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Timeline†). Then there was the Battle of the Alamo. The Alamo is actually church originally known as the Mision San Antonio de Valero (â€Å"Alamo†). It was used by the Texan forces as a fort. Unfortunately, the Texan forces were defeated by the Mexican troops, under the leadership of Santa Anna. However, Santa Anna was not victorious for long; in April 21, 1836, he was captured by Houston and his forces at the Battle of San Jacinto (Calvert & Doughty 11; â€Å"Revolution†;â€Å"Timeline†). Afterwards, Santa Anna signed a treaty recognizing Texan independence (Perry 505). Texas became a republic (â€Å"Revolution†). In 1845, the Congress of the United States pushed to annex, or make the Republic of Texas a part of the United States (Perry 505). U. S. President James Polk signed a bill that made Texas the 28th U. S. state on December 29, 1845 (Calvert & Doughty 12; â€Å"Timeline†). On April 25, 1846, the Mexican-American war begun over the disagreement on the boundaries of Texas (â€Å"Timeline†). Mexico claimed that Nueces River was the boundary of Texas; Texans, on the other hand, insisted that Rio Grande was the boundary (Perry 505). The Mexicans were defeated; as a result, the United States acquired more than half of Mexican territories, including New Mexico and California (Perry 505). The independence of Texas was relevant in United States history. This is because it was the event that paved the way for the United States to obtain territories that would eventually be a part of it. The addition of states did shape U. S. history, as all these territories contribute to the general legacy of the nation. Without the new territories, the development and growth of the nation would not be the same, simply because certain elements would be excluded. As a member of the Union, Texas also proved relevant in shaping U. S. history. Texas did secede from the Union, but its participation in the American Civil War was still crucial in the nation’s development. The American Civil War came about as a result of Abraham Lincoln’s victory at the 1860 presidential elections (Perry 507). Lincoln was a Republican, and the Republican Party was created with the objective of abolishing slavery. The Southern states, including Texas, who were in favor of slavery decided to secede from the Union. These said states formed the Confederate States of America. Texas seceded from the Union on February 1, 1861 (â€Å"Timeline†). At that time, Sam Houston was a governor, and he opposed that decision to secede as he was a Unionist (Calvert & Doughty 12). However, he was outnumbered by pro-secession delegates at the Secession Convention (â€Å"Timeline†). On May 13, 1865, the last battle of the Civil War was fought in Texas (Calvert & Doughty 12; â€Å"Timeline†). The Battle of Palmito Ranch occurred close to Brownsville, more than a month after General Robert Lee of the Confederate Army surrendered at Appomatox, Virginia. On March 30, 1870, Texas was readmitted to the Union by U. S. Congress (â€Å"Timeline†). After the Civil War, Texas had several other contributions that did affect U. S. history. First, Texas helped the federal government defeat the Native Americans (Calvert & Doughty 12). From the Civil War until the Reconstruction, the western frontier was poorly guarded; the Native Americans bothered the residents, which were prompted to leave their homes. The U. S. government realized this problem and sent out federal troops to address the issue. These troops were helped by the Texas Rangers. The Texas Rangers started as a group of volunteers that helped curb Indian attacks (Connor 135). Eventually when Texas became a republic, they became an official, full-time corps that was employed to protect the frontier. After the battles between the Native Americans were over, they became agents of law enforcement in the state (Connor 135). The state of Texas also contributed to post-war animal industry with cattle (Calvert & Doughty 12). Except for hides and tallow, cattle were initially invaluable as the markets were too far. However, with the establishment of railroads, Texan cattle were able to reach more consumers (Calvert & Doughty 12). Nonetheless, it was the cotton from Texas that exerted more economic influence in the U. S. (Calvert & Doughty 12). As the railroads progressed in the West, there was enough land for the growth of cotton. The cotton grown in Texas eventually reached the world market. As a result, Texas became a major cotton producer in the U. S. by the year 1890 (Calvert & Doughty 12). Texas again participated in U. S. history in the 1890s, which marked an era of racial discrimination (Calvert & Doughty 12). Texas was one of the states that were characterized by much tension between the whites and the blacks and Hispanics. It all began in 1896 when the Supreme Court upheld that segregation did not infringe the 14th Amendment. Hence, Texas passed legislatures that encouraged and promoted segregation of whites and blacks in the community (Calvert & Doughty 12). Texas was also responsible for the Prohibition (Calvert & Doughty 12). There was a time when progressivism was rampant in Texas, and one of its most notable ideas was to forbid the sale of alcohol. The Texan progressives thought that selling alcohol was detrimental to a democratic society and its consumption was evil. In 1887, Prohibitionists relentlessly campaigned to ban alcohol. When it was thought that alcohol impeded the U. S. efforts in World War I, a law was passed in 1918 to prohibit the sale of alcohol beverages in Texas. In January 1920, the 18th Amendment, which prohibits the sale of alcohol in the entire country, was included in the U. S. Constitution (Calvert & Doughty 12). After the American Civil War, Texas proved relevant in the history of the United States. Along with the federal troops, the Texas Rangers participated in resolving the Native American conflict. Without the rangers, the endeavor would have been more difficult; the task was made easy by the fact that the rangers have been the guarding the frontier for a long time. Texas also contributed to the U. S. economy through its cattle and cotton industries. Segregation also occurred in Texas, an occurrence that would later cause the Civil Rights Movement to arise. Lastly, the Texan prohibitionists were responsible for the passing of the 18th Amendment. If Texas had not been readmitted to the Union, some of the aforementioned events may have never occurred, drastically altering the course of U. S. history. From its independence to its readmission into the Union, Texas proved to be an important player in the history of the United States. Its independence brought the United States the territories it has at present. Its readmission brought both social and economic reform that would not have possible if the state remained in its seceded state. If one would remove Texas from the history of the United States, it would not be the nation it is now. Works Cited Calvert, Robert A. , and Robin W. Doughty. â€Å"Texas. † Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007. Microsoft Corporation. 10 April 2008 . Connor, Seymour V.â€Å"Texas Rangers. † Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia. 21 vols. New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc. , 1992. Perry, Marvin. A History of the World. Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. â€Å"Texas History Timeline. † Lone Star Junction. 1997. 10 April 2008 . â€Å"Texas Revolution. † Lone Star Internet. 2 Feb. 2007. 10 April 2008 . â€Å"The Battle of the Alamo. † The Alamo Site. 2007. 10 April 2008 .

Theories of Leadership, Who Are Corporate Psychopaths Free Essay Example, 3000 words

The trait leadership has gained fresh interest through the present prominence given on charismatic and visionary leadership. Charismatic leadership attracted fresh interest following the election of President Barrack Obama in 2008. Charismatic leadership was first introduced by Max Weber to refer to divine favor. Charismatic leaders possess charisma, which fundamentally refers to a leader s personal attributes that attract a massive following. The aspect of charisma emphasizes heroic leaders with something summarized in their dynamic and spectacular personalities. Many researchers recognize Obama s charisma as the main reason why he had a massive following and eventual election into the United States presidency (Bligh Kohles, 2009). Charismatic leadership focuses on noteworthy symbolic behaviors and emotional appeals that help to make events meaningful for followers. The delivery style of charismatic leadership is significant in helping a leader communicate with followers. Obama s smooth delivery style was viewed as critical in helping him articulate his vision. His vision of together we can and change we believe in was described as the practical application of the theoretical supposition that charismatic leaders must distill complex future ideals into simple messages with an emotional appeal (Raynolds, Outward Bound USA Chatfield, 2007). A study to establish what differentiates charismatic leaders and ordinary people established that; charismatic leaders have traits of motivation to attain social power and self-actualization, engagement in impression management, and self-monitoring. These recent studies reveal that the great men trait theory is still alive. We will write a custom essay sample on Theories of Leadership, Who Are Corporate Psychopaths or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page