"social studies" or "history" education
David Pisoni, A.K.A. 'Nimrod Gefilte'
There has been considerable debate regarding the fate of social studies
education. Much of this is due to the fact that many students can not
identify many prominent figures and events in history. In response, a number
of individuals feel we should rethink our social studies cirriculum...putting
history and geography first! Courses in economics, govenment, sociology, and
physchology should be taught only as supporting subjects.
I am writing a research paper and I would like to know how you feel about
this issue. I would appreciate any comments regarding this topic!
<<<
This seems (in my disturbed mind) to border on an argument that I constantly
have with a friend of mine who is an English major... whether History should be
classified as "Humanities" or "Social Science". (History as an "art" or
"science") There seems to be no consensus. I have been of the Humanities
persuasion. (Consider "History as Imagination", James Axtell. He uses it as ch
1 of his book _Beyond 1492_). I was also directed to a paper entitled "History
as Art", though I have not gotten a hold of it yet.
Any thoughts? Ideas? (Poems?)
David Pisoni -- Biola University
David_...@bubbs.biola.edu -- gef...@john.biola.edu
Lise Charlebois
"social science".(History as an "art" or "science")". To tell the truth
the distinction between "humanities" and "social science" is a bit new
to me. However, a very interesting book is "Truth and Method" by Hans
Georg Gadamer, one of the most influential philosophers of the
century. In particular, I recommend the Second Part entitled
"The extension of the question of truth to understanding in the
human sciences" where he discusses the history of history and its
claim to truth based on "scientific" method. This is one of the most
profound studies of claims to truth of history, art, and the methodological
sciences.
Dallas Public Library
David Pisoni, A.K.A. 'Nimrod Gefilte' <gef...@JOHN.BIOLA.EDU> wrote:
>This seems (in my disturbed mind) to border on an argument that I constantly
>have with a friend of mine who is an English major... whether History should be
>classified as "Humanities" or "Social Science". (History as an "art" or
>"science") There seems to be no consensus. I have been of the Humanities
>persuasion. (Consider "History as Imagination", James Axtell. He uses it as ch
>1 of his book _Beyond 1492_). I was also directed to a paper entitled "History
>as Art", though I have not gotten a hold of it yet.
>
I'm the "history specialist" for the Dallas Public Library system (i.e,
more work, same pay), working out of the History & Social Sciences
Division -- which also includes political science, education, psychology,
sociology,... all the usual "social sciences." But our shrinking budget
dictates that reference sets not be duplicated among divisions, as far as
practicable. So when students want to look for journal articles in
*history* I have to send them four floors down in the building to the
*Humanities Division*, which is where they'll find H.W. Wilson's
HUMANITIES INDEX, which indexes history journals....
To my way of thinking, though, history is neither a humanity nor a social
science, though it shares methodologies from both. It's actually a superset.
"History" begins .00000001 seconds ago and includes everything that has
ever happened, right?
Michael K. Smith
Dallas Public Library