Hi. Here is my new essay. I'll appreciate any corrections of my grammar thoughts or anything you can think of. Thanks in advance.
History
Some people, and not only historians, claim that history is the queen of science. Others argue refusing to admit history the status of science for its particularly descriptive character. Their demand sciences to be able to infer consequences from previous events and calculations and to make predictions based on them. But where would philosophy, psychology and political science belong, then? In my opinion, this terminological war's aim is to belittle the importance of history. Provided that every science teaches students its own history I don't believe anyone may be serious about contempt for this essential part of human identity.
When a scientist is out of ideas, when he is seeking for an inspiration, when a crisis occur, he must inevitably take advice from history; in order to move forward we have to look to the past. Moreover, nation's history forms its foundation stones, which means: the identity, customs and traditions don't appear by themselves suddenly; they are drawn from history.
In contrast, ignominious incidents often annoy citizens, making them feel coward and unimportant for the deeds of their ancestors. Coming to terms, overcoming and if possible learning from past mistakes are the means to use so as to be proud of what is worth of being proud of and not to shy about things that cannot be changed. Tyrants often avail the feeling of oppression sensed by people to fanaticise nation against chosen enemy. They distort historical facts, emphasise every harm done to citizens, exaggerate its significance, and persuade people to establish due revenge. If citizens knew the truth, they wouldn't be so prone to succumb to manipulative techniques. On this purpose, teaching some essential knowledge of history seems to be crucial part of education.
Students don't like learning by heart. Today's trend follows the rule of remembering the necessary minimum and focusing on various methods how to derive the rest by thinking. However I myself don't have great memory, I'm convinced that there are some facts which we must know without any protracted contemplating. In addition, not many data in history can be inferred from others if you don't have a complex insight into the concerning period of time which is harder to achieve than simply memorising few facts. Furthermore, acquaintance with even basic historical contexts may make a great impress on your friends; it can become a theme of conversation, which makes you look like an interesting clever person, consequently.
In conclusion, I want to summarise the impact of knowing history described earlier. It can save lives, make you look smart, give you a feeling of pride and very often inspire you which is, I would say, not little. History is worth occupying anyone's time being a science or not.
Thanks very much. As for the explanation of the first sentence - some scientists made a definition of what science is. I don't remember it exactly, but I know that history didn't meet the criteria set by them and therefore they refused to reckon that history belongs among science branches.
Dit I phrase it wrongly or unclearly?
Thanks again for your great help. I appreciate it a lot and I hope you'll help me in the future with some new essays as well.
