• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Futures & Foresight Science >Historical methods in the social sciences: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020
【24h】

Historical methods in the social sciences: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020

机译：历史研究方法在社会科学中:评论舒梅克2020

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Schoemaker (2020) has written a thought-provoking essay, juxtaposing what many would regard as radically distinct intellectual enterprises: analyzing the past and creating scenarios about the future. Schoemaker points out that most historians are reluctant to extrapolate from their work and offer predictions about the future. The wonderful quip, “It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”1 encapsulates the reason why professional historians—almost as a professional badge of honor and good practice—shy away from making predictions about the future. No doubt, it is much easier to narrate a story where you know what the outcome is than provide a narrative about how the future will turn out. This it not only because the past isclosed in terms of what can happen while the future remains open. As Schoemaker (2020, p. 2) suggests, our brains are much better able to come up with a causal story for an event that is framed as having already occurred than developing a causal story for an event that is merely framed as one out of many possible future outcomes.
机译：休梅克(2020)写了一个发人深省的论文,对比了很多人会认为什么从根本上不同的知识企业:分析过去和创建场景未来。历史学家不愿推断他们的工作和提供预测的未来。对未来做出预测,尤其是“1封装了专业的原因historians-almost作为一个专业的标志荣誉和良好practice-shy远离对未来的预测。更容易叙述一个故事,你知道的结果是比提供一个故事未来将会如何。只是因为过去关闭的可能发生在未来仍然是开放的。休梅克(2020年,p . 2)表明,我们的大脑更好的能够想出一个因果的故事框架已经为一个事件比发展的因果故事发生事件,仅仅是作为一个很多未来可能的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号