According to Collingwood, what makes History a ‘science,’ but how does it differ in its methods from those of the ‘exact sciences’? How does Collingwood define ‘historical knowledge’ and ‘historical inference’, and how does ‘historical inference’ differ from methods of reasoning in the ‘exact sciences’? What are Collingwood’s criticisms of ‘scissors-and-paste history’, and what methods should the historian adopt in the research and writing of history?
Required Reading: Week #11 Handout HST 300, Scientific and Idealist History in the 20th Century, historian (iii). R.G. Collingwood, extracts from The Idea of History. On Collingwood’s career in your essay introduction you can cite Hughes-Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History, entry on Collingwood, pp. 40-48.
VERY IMPORTANT | PLEASE ONLY USE SOURCES GIVEN AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. FORMAT IS AN INTRODUCTION -> BODY PARAGRAPHS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS -> CONCLUSION thank you uwu Hughes-Warrangton to help with the introduction (40 – 48); however, isn’t required and cannot be used for body paragraphs. https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet02-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com/61aab133e7df2/52055204?X-Blackboard-Expiration=1653285600000&X-Blackboard-Signature=X%2F93NRaQ%2Bqx2NG7vsdgaSW3Ac3WQMBltLQ%2BylLBpo5s%3D&X-Blackboard-Client-Id=100211
