Who is smarter? Historians or Scientists?

  • Historians
    Vote A
  • Scientists
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
413

Most Helpful Girl

  • historians have inmense amount of data/facts/stories to tell. I find that amusing. So I went with historians. Scientists are more try and error, experiments and data collection. I think scientist can be very creative and problem solvers by nature thats amusing too.

    0|0
    0|0
    • amusing? What's funny about them?

    • Meant as enjoyable, delightful, engaging and pleasant behavior to see or just be around it. (as of in class)

Most Helpful Guy

  • philosophers lol
    no seriously I would say either of them, I suggest you to read Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences and the start of Heidegger's conference written in what is Metaphysics. To sum it up roughtly those 2 discipline don't have the same need in terms of progress science need precision while history need rigor. a good scientist can be a bad historian and a good historian can be a bad scientist. One need to get his calcul good have some imagination to create and test theory while the other need to look up all the logical possibility that led this man to do this thing and not underestimating the facts and context that led things to be as they are.

    1|0
    0|0
    • oh and you should add a either option in the poll

    • Well technically you can also make the argument that philosophers are scientist since the origin of science is seen as philosophy.

    • More like scientist are philosopher you mean?
      but yeah there is a link between them.

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 3

  • An individual historian might be better at their field than an individual scientist is at theirs, but I do not think there is a universal category which we can compare them both to. Also, I would say 'historians' and 'scientists' are too problematic to make into clean categories like that.

    0|1
    0|0
  • smart in different ways

    0|0
    0|0
  • Second

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 12

  • Both involve developing hypotheses and testing these against the evidence.

    There's less of a division between the two than many people imagine, although one is certainly more practical than the other.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You can't ask who is smarter, there are obviously better sides to both professions.
    Both obviously have to learn a lot of facts but that doesn't make them smart.
    Historians have a better understanding of wider subjects and have to be able to connect a lot of factors, but scientists often have to use very abstract thinking to understand everything that is happening and what they are studying.
    Both of those are traits of intelligent people, so I guess it depends on what you think as smart.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Historians are smarter in history. Scientists are smarter in science.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Well you can say that both are the same in the context that both are based on the principles of observation.

    0|0
    0|0
  • A historian knows more history..
    A scientist knows more science..

    1|0
    0|0
  • They are both smart. Subject matter is a poor metric for intelligence.

    0|0
    0|0
  • This is like asking philosophy or physics

    0|0
    0|0
  • historians

    0|0
    0|0
  • Scientists

    0|0
    0|0
  • Scientists

    0|0
    0|0
  • When they explain something, most people will understand historians. Most people will not understand scientists.

    0|0
    0|0
  • historians just memorize facts. scientists solve problems.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Hmmm... historians create viable explanations for social phenomena. They don't just memorize facts any more than a scientist does (and scientists have to memorize a lot of facts).

    • Show All
    • I'm guessing you're neither a historian nor a scientist.

Recommended myTakes

Loading...