L

ouis Gottschalk from the University of Chicago has written that '€œhistory is, to be sure, scientific in method'€. Although, several points have been made that indicate the arts have played a part in the subject. These seemingly two contrasting fields give us the penetrating question: Is history a science or an art?

 I believe historians have established events that have transpired through critical analysis and fact, signaling similarities with scientific investigation. We analyze based on concrete facts. Like scientists, before getting a result, historians hypothesize. They create a statement that is then further supported by research and collected data before coming to a conclusion.

However, historical analysis does not stop there. For example, when we see an abstract piece of art, the interpretation of that artwork may differ from one person to the next. This is where arts play a role in history: Through the application of opinion and constructed thought. Individuals interpret events, public figures and ideologies; setting a definition based on the evidence placed before them.

So presenting it simply, history requires the application of both science and the arts. Science provides a variety of procedures for carrying out investigations while the arts provide a panel for opinion and justification. We cannot assume that one of these subjects is more dominant than the other because they are both examples of how information is verified and authenticated.

Raafi Seiff
Jakarta