In contrast to a journalistic appropriation, however, scientists will endeavour to reveal the principles and building blocks of their own construction and make them comprehensible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They will also endeavour to take into account all available details to such an extent that they do not contradict their image, in the words of the philosopher Karl Popper, to test the \u2018truth similarity\u2019 of a theory [K. Popper, Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach]. If they succeed in doing this, some will grant the result the quality of a \u201cre-construction\u201d of past reality and thus raise it to an \u201cobjective\u201d level. In the vast majority of cases, however, this is not the only possible view, not even the most probable in the mathematical sense, because historical facts are rarely calculable, but a plausible one, i.e. a treatment of the problem that is appropriate to it and makes a recognisable contribution to its understanding [E. von Glasersfeld, An Introduction to Radical Constructivism]. One of the most important tasks of a degree programme is to learn to allow this plurality of perspectives without confusing it with arbitrariness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eckhard Wirbelauer ~ Oldenburg Geschichte Lehrbuch Antike<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t\t