We Do Not Know Anything - This

Almost Everyone... Seems To Be Quite Sure That The Differences Between The Methodologies Of History And Of The Natural Sciences Are Vast. For, We Are Assured, It Is Well Known That In The Natural Sciences We Start From Observation And Proceed By Induction To Theory. And Is It Not Obvious That In History We Proceed Very Differently? Yes, I Agree That We Proceed Very Differently. But We Do So In The Natural Sciences As Well.

If We Wish Our Civilization To Survive We Must Break With The Habit Of Deference To Great Men.

Science Is Not A System Of Certain, Or -established, Statements; Nor Is It A System Which Steadily Advances Towards A State Of Finality... And Our Guesses Are Guided By The Unscientific, The Metaphysical (though Biologically Explicable) Faith In Laws, In Regularities Which We Can Uncover-discover. Like Bacon, We Might Describe Our Own Contemporary Science-'the Method Of Reasoning Which Men Now Ordinarily Apply To Nature'-as Consisting Of 'anticipations, Rash And Premature' And As 'prejudices'.

Psychologism Is, I Believe, Correct Only In So Far As It Insists Upon What May Be Called 'methodological Individualism' As Opposed To 'methodological Collectivism'; It Rightly Insists That The 'behaviour' And The 'actions' Of Collectives, Such As States Or Social Groups, Must Be Reduced To The Behaviour And To The Actions Of Human Individuals. But The Belief That The Choice Of Such An Individualist Method Implies The Choice Of A Psychological Method Is Mistaken.

The History Of Science Is Everywhere Speculative. It Is A Marvelous Hiatory. It Makes You Proud To Be A Human Being.