1 2
Compare the roles played by reason and imagination in at least two Areas of Knowledge
3
4
Commenting on the process by which he developed his theory of special relativity,
5
Einstein stated: “A new idea comes suddenly and in a rather intuitive way…. It is not reached
6
by conscious logical conclusions. But, thinking it through afterwards… you will find a logical
7
way to justify it.”1 If Einstein is right, this implies that experts in the field of natural sciences
8
use a combination of imagination and reason to develop and justify theories, challenging the
9
stereotypical view of sciences as an entirely logical discipline. Another commonly held, but I
10
believe equally one-‐sided belief is that history depends mostly upon the imaginations of
11
historians, as the write Jessamyn West stated, “The past is really almost as much a work of
12
imagination as the future.”2 I would suggest that a historian also uses logic when analyzing
13
and selecting sources to ultimately form and justify historical theories, thus history, like
14
sciences uses a synthesis of reason and imagination to gain new knowledge. Hence, it may
15
appear that the roles of logic and imagination are extremely similar in history and natural
16
sciences, especially when considering the personal aim of experts within their field.
17
Nevertheless, by analyzing the process of hypothesis formation and justification in both
18
disciplines, we can establish the importance and reliability of reasoning and imagination
19
within them, and small distinctions can be made between their specific roles in these areas
20
of knowledge.
21 22 23 24
In the natural sciences the role of logic is clear. For example, in physics, deductive mathematical reasoning is often used: Power = Current x Voltage
Voltage = Current x Resistance
If we accept these premises, we can deduce that Power = Current2 x Resistance.
25
Science commonly requires such reasoning. There is also an inductive component to the
26
scientific model. When an experiment is carried out repeatedly, each time producing the
27
same outcome, scientists are confident in using the results as evidence for a theory, yet they
28
recognise that there may be an exception not yet discovered. Thus the scientific method can
29
never strictly prove a theory, only disprove it. For example, Newton’s three laws of motion
30
were widely acknowledged as describing the movements of objects accurately, yet over 150 1 Stachel, J. How did Einstein discover Relativity? 10/01/2007 http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-‐einstein-‐relativity.htm 2 West, J.Famous Quotes and Quotations by History Authors. 13/01/2007 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h.html
31
years later, Einstein showed that these laws did not hold for bodies travelling at extremely
32
high velocities. To challenge such well-‐established laws, Einstein had to initially surpass
33
inductive and deductive logic and employ imagination, apparently envisaging trying to chase
34
a light photon.3
35
This is for me seems to be how imagination fits into natural sciences – the scientist
36
uses imagination to discover new problems and form possible theories , and only afterwards
37
applies reasoning, using already established knowledge and mathematics, to support it.
38
Thus, imagination seems to come first. As physics student, I find that imagination is involved
39
in the process as much as logic, especially when discussing such topics as the expansion of
40
the universe. This states that the universe is expanding, but not into anything, as the
41
universe already contains all the space there is.4 This is a difficult concept to grasp,
42
imagination is definitely required. In fact many contrasting theories for the fate of the
43
universe have been out forward5, each based on little experimental evidence, developed by
44
scientists using their expert knowledge to imagine future. They all begin with all the same
45
currently accepted data and theories, yet some predict the universe will expand (open
46
universe), others that it will reach equilibrium (flat universe), and others that it will collapse
47
(close universe) 6. These three very different outcomes suggest that either some have
48
reasoned invalidly, or perhaps that their imagination has been involved in the process. So
49
whilst reasoning is important in justifying theories, imagination is central in their formation.
50
Similarly, history draws on both reason and imagination to further knowledge. An historian
51
of Soviet Russians 7 must be able to enter the mindset of that dictator using imagination.
52
Perhaps then, there is actually more imagination involved in history than in science, and
53
perhaps it can be more desirable. Certainly, the historian must be continuously aware of the
54
constant struggle between reason and imagination, and the dangers of bias and paradigms,
55
so theories must be supported by well reasoned evidence. An historian can never fully
56
disentangle himself from his paradigm and so history depends on where and when it is told.
57
In Britain there remains a sense of historical guilt surrounding the imperial period, possibly
58
producing a tendency to focus solely on the atrocities committed in the colonies, and
59
forgetting some more positive factors of the empire, such as trade links.8 Thus, perhaps for 3 Stachel, J. How did Einstein discover Relativity? 23/01/2007 http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-‐ einstein-‐relativity.htm 4 Kirk, T.Physics for the IB Diploma. Oxford University Press. Oxford 2003 p133 5 ibid. p133 6 ibid. p133 7 Historic Figures -‐ Joseph Stalin 23/01/2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml 8 Duffy, J. The British Empire Strikes Back. 24/01/2006 http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3889537.stm
60
an historian to be as objective as possible, he should employ his imagination to try and
61
transcend his paradigm, as Einstein did, as well as visualize the past. It is precisely these
62
paradigms that provide the modern historians with such contradicting sources. When I
63
studied history, I remember being faced with two sources, one claiming that ‘Every letter of
64
Chairman Mao’s words is gold and every sentence truth’9and the other Mao ‘ruled by getting
65
people to hate each other’. 10 This contradiction of sources is common and in such cases, the
66
most objective sources must be selected. This is, however, problematic, as whilst there are
67
desirable qualities in a source (e.g. traceability) we can never escape the subjective input of
68
the historian. Yet there is still a large element of reason in this process. By looking at the
69
author’s situation, historians can logically deduce his reasons for writing the source and
70
determine its level of accuracy. This again requires emotional empathy using imagination.
71
Thus we can see the subtle interplay of reason and imagination in the methodology of
72
history. Subsequently, whilst history shares broad similarities with the natural sciences, there
73 74
are some differences in the detail. Reason and imagination are much more inseparable in
75
history.
76
77
I have claimed that imagination is used in both areas of knowledge to create theories,
78
and reason to develop, clarify and support them. However, in both disciplines, a theory can
79
never be completely proven, only falsified or widely disregarded, and I believe that the
80
principle of falsification is striking similarity between the natural sciences and history. The
81
process employs reason to detect problems with a theory. However, a theory is never
82
falsified completely. In the modern scientific and historical communities there is intense competition, and a
83 84
sure way to be recognized is to coin a new, radical theory. Perhaps this places more
85
emphasis on the imaginative side of the process. As a result, theories such as ‘cold
86
fusion’11and AJP Taylor’s ‘railroad theory’ 12 arise. Current experts will want to investigate
87
and possibly disprove theories, by finding errors in the mathematics and experiments in
88
science, and in the selection and interpretation of historical sources. This requires logic. In
89
the case of cold fusion, in 1989 two scientists announced that they had produced fusion at 9
Walsh, B.Modern World History. John Murray Ltd. London 1996 p276 ibid. p278 11 Cold Fusion – Wikipedia 13/01/2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cold_fusion 12 AJP Taylor’s Railroad Timetable Theory 17/01/2007 http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm 10
90
room temperature, which if true was a monumental scientific break-‐through. However,
91
current mathematics could not account for it, and there was difficulty in replicating the
92
experiment.13 In other words, the experiment could not be inductively replicated, and the
93
theory was dismissed. The historian AJP Taylor identified German train timetables as a major
94
cause of the First World War: a sensational claim that gained him a lot of publicity.14 This
95
theory clearly required imagination to form, however the historical community will want to
96
examine the evidence (sources and his interpretation) for this, so that they can argue for or
97
against it using reason. Of AJP Taylor, the historian Ernest Bevin said “He objected to ideas
98
only when others had them.”15 indicating that for Taylor, imaginative, radical theories were
99
more important than objective ones. Whilst this approach may have made him notorious,
100
his theory, not backed by the historical community, will never become history itself, merely
101
a generally disregarded theory. In my opinion, this raises a defining similarity in the role of
102
reason between history and the natural sciences. In science, valid reasoning can be used to
103
disprove a theory; however, the inductive element of science cannot be escaped, and it is
104
present even in falsification. When a theory is ‘disproved’ by a new experiment, the principle
105
of induction is still used to assume that the experiment will always work, and that the
106
falsification can be replicated -‐ but there could be an exception around the corner, and so a
107
scientific theory can never be falsified definitively. In history, definite falsification by reason
108
is also impossible, as the theory will always contain a degree of subjectivity. History is
109
essentially the opinion of historians. The best historical community can do is to agree, using
110
reason, on whether the evidence supporting a theory is substantial enough to form a
111
convincing argument.
112
If therefore appears that the roles of imagination and reason in the natural sciences
113
and history are similar. Whilst the subject-‐matter in each area differs I argue that that the
114
methodologies are alike. For a theory to be formed, imagination is employed. It must then
115
be supported by evidence that is provided by valid reasoning. Furthermore, experts will
116
examine this reason and interpretation, possibly finding faults with it, and thus potentially
117
falsify it. Here we find a striking similarity in the role of reason, as both scientific and
118
historical theories cannot be definitively falsified. Theories can only be widely contested,
119
never ignored. I therefore find that the roles of reason and imagination are much more
120
intertwined in History, whilst in science they seen more separate with perhaps more 13
Cold Fusion – Wikipedia 13/01/2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cold_fusion AJP Taylor’s Railroad Timetable Theory 17/01/2007 http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm 15 AJP Taylor – Wikipedia 17/10/2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J.P_Taylor 14
121
emphasis on reason. So, whilst the roles of logic and imagination in science and history are
122
vastly similar on the surface, when studied in the detail, the diversity of these areas of
123
knowledge can be found.
