Given access to the same facts, it is possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline. Although I believe this statement holds true for history, I do not believe it is valid in regard to the natural sciences. In history, facts are events that have taken place in time and are accepted to have happened. It is then the responsibility of historians to interpret the significance of these facts. Similarly, in the natural sciences, facts are phenomena that are observed. Natural scientists then utilize facts in experimenting and developing theories, which are used to make sense of facts. With the scientific method and collaboration, scientists use facts in ultimately comprehending phenomena in the natural world. This is why I am led to believe that experts can possibly disagree in history but not …show more content…
In history, historians are entitled to their interpretations of past events which are based on factual evidence. Using primary sources, they are able to draw general conclusions about the past through inductive reasoning. A historian’s interpretation of historical events is dependent upon the historian’s beliefs and values. This means that historians, given the same facts, can arrive at different conclusions and disagree due to their distinct perspectives. For example, the New Deal was an economic program during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidential term. It was meant to improve the U.S. financial system, aid those that were unemployed, and improve the U.S. economy during the Great Depression. Historians like Jim Powell and Adam Cohen have opposing views about the effectiveness of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. While Cohen believes that the New Deal aided America in ending the Great Depression, Powell believes the New Deal elongated the period of the Great Depression(cnn.com). According to Powell, “The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression...because of a combination of