When we are in the final years of Elementary School and are consequently preparing to enter High School, we get in touch with the so-called "Scienceshard”, that is, subjects like Physics and chemistry. These sciences are also known by the old name of "Sciences ANDexact", name that expresses its main characteristic: a accuracy. Associated with the concept of accuracy we have the concept of objectivity or of methodobjective to achieve a precise and accurate result. Well, when it comes to History, or from "SciencegivesHistory", we can say that there is also this type of objectivity?
In order to try to answer this question, it is necessary, initially, to reflect a little on the nature of objects Exact Sciences and Human Sciences. An object of study is what such science is interested in explaining and understanding. Therefore, each of the sciences is responsible for developing ways to analyze such an object according to its nature. The object of Exact Sciences, or Natural Sciences, such as Physics and Chemistry, are the phenomena that occur in the material reality we know, that is, they are the phenomena of nature and the composition of the nature. In this sense, physicists and chemists have the advantage of being able to analyze in the laboratory or in large observation centers and experimentation its object of study, which is empirically verifiable – palpable, being able to be seen, touched and manipulated.
The Exact Sciences, moreover, were organized from the mathematical language developed by scientists and philosophers, such as Renediscards and IsaacNewton, between the 17th and 18th centuries. Gradually, these disciplines were associated with the idea of precision and quantification. In the 19th century, the Human Sciences arose around the model of the Natural Sciences and, based on this model, they also sought to define their criteria of objectivity. Both sociology and history sought to define their objects of study and frame them in general models of explanation. History had a special difficulty with this, given that its object of study is empirically inaccessible, because the past human events and phenomena cannot be analyzed and verified in the laboratory like the composition of an element. chemist is.
In order to investigate History or the human past, there has always been and still has to come up against the problem of the degree of objectivity that this science (or knowledge) implies. How can we know if what the historian writes about the past is true and impartial if there is no way to go back to the past and apprehend it in its entirety? This problem leads to another: the impartiality of the historian. Some theorists of history argue that the historian always needs a perspective, that is, a partial point of view, however controlled by the traces and historical documents, to undertake their investigation. This point of view would be inevitable because it would depend on criteria of historical meaning linked to the lack of orientation that practical life raises.
Furthermore, the object of History is precisely the action of man in time, loaded with motivations, intentions, mistakes and passions. For History, the best method would be not the one mirrored in the Natural Sciences method that has a intrinsic need for precision and objectivity, but a method that could account for the contradictions of being human, one methodinterpretative and not purely explanatory, implying a limited objectivity and guided by the referential control and the creative power of the narrativehistoric.
As the German theorist of history, Jörn Rüsen said: “The pretense of objectivity does not detract from them the vigor of life. Objectivity can be recognized as a form of its liveliness, in which historical narratives reinforce experience and intersubjectivity in cultural orientation. And in so doing, they make the burden of life – who knows? – a little more bearable.” (Rüsen, Jörn. Narrativity and objectivity in the historical sciences. Textsinstory. v. 4. No. 1 (1996). pp. 75-101)
By Me. Cláudio Fernandes
