Do you prefer science or history?

1. 43

   starstreamposted 11 years ago

   Do you prefer science or history?

   replyreport
2. 74

   alancaster149posted 11 years ago

   This is a bit like asking: 'Do you prefer life to death?'
   Science is knowledge and so is history, of a different nature. Whereas my Hubs tend to be largely historic in content, I wouldn't preclude scienctific knowledge. We use science to discover the past, in carbon-dating artefacts from hundreds of thousands of years back to hundreds of years. We also use science to establish identity, such as genealogy and DNA testing to find out whether relics or remains are what archaeologists say they may be.
   Postholes in the ground can be verified by evidence of burning in the earth, and ships like Henry VIII's 'Mary Rose' have been pieced together with the aid of tools normally used to build on riverbeds. Roman and Greek civil or military engineering has been unearthed in Europe and North Africa, remains of Pompeii extracted from the coagulated ash rained down by Vesuvius with the aid of modern engineering developed in science. Modern machinery is different from its predecessors only by advances in technology, the physics are in the laws of nature.
   Since the apple fell on Isaac Newton science and history are interlinked.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Lady Wordsmithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I would say since well before Newton.  I think of prehistory as having so much to do with science, though the science is not written down.  I think of cave dwellers, hunter-gatherers and so on, learning to make fire, different hunting techniques etc.

      replyreport
   2. 43

      starstreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks so much for your excellent answer.  It is appreciated. I encourage everyone to read it!

      replyreport
3. 71

   lburmasterposted 11 years ago

   That would entirely depend upon the type of science in question. Biology? Chemistry? With both of these, history would win. But with behavioral sciences? History would lose.

   replyreport
4. 79

   Beata Stasakposted 11 years ago

   Just like alancaster said, there are too closely interlinked that it is hard to choose one or another:) Sciene and history are both the main ground stone on which our civilization and everything we know and believe in, stand:)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ceydaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ın my opınıon history can give a right to science .but  when we look at the evolution of human for example ; people had contributed to their  life with science  discovering the world by judging and proposing some theories like why ,how,where..

      replyreport
5. 70

   Radical Rogposted 11 years ago

   I think it takes an understanding of history to fully understand science and an understanding of science to fully understand history. History is affected by scientific development just as scientific development has a history and this crosses over into so many fields.
   Modern architects consider underfloor heating to be something relatively new but ancient Romans used an underfloor heating system in all their posh houses.

   replyreport
6. 75

   Lady Wordsmithposted 11 years ago

   Same here.  The two subjects are not, and indeed cannot be, mutually exclusive.  To understand science you must have a good knowledge of how developments, theories, discoveries and practices came to be; you must understand the path your discipline has taken to be able to take it forward. 
   
   And likewise, you cannot read history without hitting on science at some point - the written past is awash with scientific discoveries, affecting every aspect of life, the progress of civilisations, war, health, economics, the arts, the day to day life of every human who has ever lived from the lowest in society to the highest in every land.  Every topic of history you may care to look at will have some involvement with science - humans are scientists, it's the way they process the information their brains receive about the world, whether they know it or not.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      alancaster149posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Leonardo da Vinci was probably scientifically minded, envisaging mechanically assisted flight and other technical developments. His outlook on art was more scientific than, say, Durer or Michelangelo, although these artists used realism in their work

      replyreport
   2. 43

      starstreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree the two must work together in our progress across time.

      replyreport
7. 79

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   I like to see how science, innovations and inventions have intersected history and change the course...some for good, some not. A really interesting show that played "connect the dots" with this in mind was "Connections" and "Connections II" with James Burke.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      alancaster149posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I remember that programme. Don't know what happened to Mr Burke, though. It was good while it lasted, but maybe it was a bit above some viewers if it was taken off the air because of falling ratings.

      replyreport
8. 90

   lorddraven2000posted 11 years ago

   I am about 50/50 on this one. I love science and theory but history has always been a big part of my life.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Kieran Gracieposted 11 years ago

   As others have already commented, the two disciplines are inter-twined and are merely two aspects of life's rich pattern.  When I was at school my history teachers were obsessed with dates (the date of the Treaty of ... or the date of King So-and-so ascending his throne, etc), and also a very narrow band of history - in my case it was the Tudor kings of England to the exclusion of most other history.  Science, on the other hand, was exciting because I already knew that I wanted to become an engineer.  So, science 1, History 0.
   
   Later I discovered the almost bottomless pit of historical knowledge.  In whatever direction I traveled there was more history than I could ever encompass.  I found, and still find, this totally fascinating.  But, as I climbed the engineering ladder and became more and more management oriented, I found that I was forgetting most of the science that I had learned. 
   
   Now I am still interested in science but much prefer history.

   replyreport
   1. 43

      starstreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is a very interesting answer. Thank you for taking time to share and to point out your life experience. It may be that a few readers of your response will consider history more interesting and important.

      replyreport
10. 82

    brblogposted 11 years ago

    I would have to choose history over science – as an interest. Many think history is about events but I look at as being about people, their situations and actions trough time. I see science as more about the processes of life. That is also interesting but for me, history trumps it.

    replyreport
    1. 43

       starstreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       When we look at events in our past certainly it helps us to better understand and make choices for our present. I like the idea of choices for our future which certainly involve some science too.

       replyreport
11. 85

    Express10posted 11 years ago

    I enjoy and prefer learning about science. I learn about history in school but when given the choice, I choose more science.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       alancaster149posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Trouble with the way 'subjects' are dealt with in education many can't figure a link between, say, geography and history or science. In itself English Language is a study in history!

       replyreport
12. 60

    FolliediVetroposted 11 years ago

    Hi,I do prefer science,but history can teach us many things, the past often become part of the future.

    replyreport
13. 74

    James-wolveposted 11 years ago

    History by far.
    History is very interesting, more academic  than science.
    Science could also be portrayed as interesting... it's more practical than history.
    Personally, I prefer History because you get to learn about different people, different periods of times, and different places.

    replyreport
    1. 43

       starstreamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for offering your comments on this question.

       replyreport
14. 72

    dommcgposted 11 years ago

    I love them both, science helps us to undersatand the future and history helps us understand the past. We need to understand them both to prepare for the future and all that it will throw at us.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       haikutwinkleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I agree.
       Science is more focused on what's going to happen tomorrow and History is more about what had happened in the past.
       There are certainly many reasons why people prefer one over the other.

       replyreport
15. 61

    Yahlposted 11 years ago

    I prefer History than Science mainly because I prefer memorizing rather than experimenting. Lol

    replyreport
16. 59

    abbyw1989posted 11 years ago

    I think this depends greatly on the field in each. I absolutely love studying history, particularly Greek, Roman and English. I love war history too. However I'm fascinated by the social sciences too, Psychology in particular. I think a mixture of both allows a balanced view.

    replyreport
17. 93

    Elderberry Artsposted 11 years ago

    Science definitely and as I have gotten past the stuff they teach over and over in schools I have come to like it more. Though I am not sure I totally understand it though experiments, quantum physics etc would of kept me way more interested at school than learning over and over about reproduction, digestion etc.

    replyreport
18. 60

    Miss Mimiposted 11 years ago

    It's a difficult decision, there are areas of each I enjoy learning about. When rigging and performing with fire, I need to use physics and science to be safe and to produce cool effects. But biology was my least favorite subject in school. I love learning about music history and ancient Greece, however reading about the details of battles tends to bore me to the point of losing focus. I feel like the two also work together frequently. I feel like my life would be incomplete if I had to really choose between them, however I believe I have read more historical texts than scientific ones. So far!

    replyreport
19. 60

    haikutwinkleposted 11 years ago

    Science is a fact, yet science hasn't (or couldn't) proven whether Reiki actually offers beneficial values to patients.
    History is a fact, yet the printed information on history textbooks are selected with considerations by some Education Committee (who works for the government).
    
    "A simple question
    yet the minds
    complicate things"

    replyreport
20. 82

    lanablackmoorposted 11 years ago

    Interesting question! Insofar as studying goes, I absolutely prefer science. I've always had a curiosity for the way things work down to a microscopic level. It's amazing to me that we have a very methodical system for analyzing the natural world and constantly improving ourselves.
    
    As I get older, though, I'm discovering a new appreciation for history. Once you dig into more specific historical topics, you're bound to discover something that interests you more than the general information we all had to learn in high school. Lately I've gotten really into World War II, Celtic and Chinese history.
    
    That's all speaking from a student's perspective, though. Practically speaking, as others have mentioned, the two disciplines are heavily intertwined and I'd hate to see the dismal state we'd all be in without a solid understanding of either one.

    replyreport
21. 73

    Insightful Tigerposted 11 years ago

    OK , so the way I'm taking this question is like this- I'm on a deserted Island and there is a genie and a TV. He says that he can only let me watch one channel. History or Science. I would choose History, because it would include science up to the last second:) and if he let me have one more wish. I would wish for more wishes. Loophole!! Score!! Badabing!

    replyreport
22. 0

    supreme upbeatposted 11 years ago

    We must know the history of science and the sciene of history to better understand science and history .I think this is like to choose nerve and heart out of a human being.Once when Aristotle was asked to define the relationship between science and religion,he said that without religion siene is lame and religion can not stand without sience..Thus I can conlude that that these two subjects are interrelated and interlinked.

    replyreport
23. 60

    geetbhimposted 11 years ago

    Science or history it depends on person choice what do they like to study. I like science than history as both subject is important for the betterment of human race.

    replyreport
24. 60

    oceanuniverseposted 11 years ago

    I prefer both science and history, they can both teach us certain things about certain things. Science teaches us what is going on, what will happen and so. History teaches us what happened in the past and to learn from the past, because everything comes back around again and again.
    I like your question, its a good one.

    replyreport
25. 42

    jasonmstylesposted 11 years ago

    If I would have to pick between the two, I would have to go with history. Not that I don't like science. However, I enjoy reading about history and seeing where we came from, how we became who we are, the good, the bad and the ugly. For me, looking into the past can help explain and lead to new things, such as science.

    replyreport