You study the history, you dont judge it. The second point is what most historians today lack. The ability to imagine how the context around any given events were, and understand history by it.
A historian ought to be exact, sincere and impartial; free from passion; unbiased by interest, fear, resentment or affection; and faithful to the truth, which is the mother of history; the preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion, the witness of the past, and the director of the future.
What about predicting the future? The main reason we learn history is because we want to prevent the mistakes from the past or getting inspired from the past. This is why I have a problem with how history is taught. At least in Norway. I have had history lessons for 13 years, but we never predicted anything. All we did was talking about the past. We should talk about this a lot more often.
No it's not. History is argumentation about our past because ultimately we want to know what it is that happened and we want to know who we are. Nobody uses history to predict the future. That's never been the point of history and never will be. Ask any good history professor what the point of history is, please
Marcos Pedroza Understanding complexities and reimagining past life seems to me to be a trumendously valuable combination of skills. More valuable than more formal forms of social sciences as a way of understanding futures.
Because history is understanding human development. We only narrow down the things that might happen in the future but we can't be sure what will really happen as the variables are all over the place. As one famous person said, history doesnt really repeat itself, it just rhymes.
