Browse By

What is the difference between judging and explaining?

The difference between judging and explaining lies in the perspective and approach used. While judging involves making a value judgment, explaining seeks to provide objective information and understanding about a topic or situation.

What is the difference between judging and explaining?

Answer: A judgment is the subjective assessment that each individual makes about a historical fact or process, while an explanation refers to the narration of the events that occurred.

What is the synonym of judge?

judging’ refers to the ability to discern between right and wrong, just and unjust, through reasoning and reflection.

What is the difference between criticizing and judging?

The difference between criticizing and judging is that judging involves having an opinion without knowing all the details, while criticizing involves expressing that opinion. For example, judging would be having a bad impression of someone without knowing them, but then becoming best friends. On the other hand, to criticize would be to express that negative opinion. It is important to keep in mind that judging can be fair or unfair, depending on the situation.

What are the characteristics of judging?

The word “judge” has different uses in everyday language. In a legal sense, it involves determining guilt of a crime and is related to formal justice. However, it is also used to evaluate or form an opinion about a fact or a person, without it necessarily being in a judicial context.

This assessment allows us to make decisions and choose between different options. It is important to analyze the alternatives before judging which is the best option.

Sometimes we make a mistake when judging someone on a first impression. It may be that, as we get to know him better, we will discover that we had been hasty in our judgment. This usually happens due to prejudices or previous assumptions that later fade when you get to know the person in depth.

We can also judge a product after trying it and determining if it lives up to the promises made to us in its promotion.

What is judging in history?

The act of judging involves making an evaluation of facts and circumstances to make a decision. This term is used especially in the field of law, where specially trained people evaluate facts regarding a person or entity and reach a conclusion that must be compulsorily executed. It also applies to the realm of reason, where a judgment is an assessment of circumstances and an understanding of reality that will affect behavior.

In the judicial process, the act of judging must follow previously established guidelines. Any type of behavior that may have undesirable consequences is not allowed. The parties involved in a trial are governed by procedural law, which guarantees that justice is followed. For example, in criminal cases, defendants are required to have a legal defender and a prosecutor. The prosecutor presents evidence showing how and when the crimes were committed, while the defense attorney attempts to invalidate that evidence. During this process, defendants are considered innocent until the judge issues a negative ruling.

It is interesting to see how this type of procedure is applied not only in secular settings, but also in the Catholic Church. For example, in the process of canonization of saints, a similar process is followed, where one party presents evidence of a person’s sainthood and another party attempts to refute that evidence. In this case, it is not about proving the violation of the law, but rather determining whether the person led an exemplary life that should be imitated by the faithful.

Source: Gonzalo Ramos, Asigna Encyclopedia, Edition 13, 042014.

What is explaining history?

History is a discipline that studies the past events of humanity, using reliable documents, records, and testimonies to provide evidence of what happened and support the narratives and interpretations written by historians.

The word “history” comes from the Greek ἱστορία, which means to bear witness. From their beginnings in Ancient Greece, historians strove to tell things as they really happened.

The first historians in Greece were Herodotus and Thucydides. Over time, the data collection carried out by story writers gave way to the search for rational explanations for the events they investigated.

In this way, the story was differentiated from other stories, such as legends and myths, in which fantasy was mixed with truth, since the story has a realistic vocation.

Currently, history is presented in the form of stories that are divided into three descriptive levels:

1. Level of discovery or discovery: when the researcher finds evidence that sheds light on an unknown fact. For example, when a letter is discovered in which a character reports unknown events.

2. Analytical and interpretive level: once a fact is known, the historian interprets its importance according to its temporal context, whether it had an influence on other events, etc.

3. Critical or historiographic level: occurs when several historians have written about the same period or historical process. In historiography, criticism and comments are made on the different interpretations of an event or period in history.

What is explaining in history?


The book “Historical Explanation and Social Time” by Rodolfo Suárez Molnar is a work that invites us to rethink the way in which historical investigations are approached. Suárez argues that historiography has been focused on the analysis of conceptual and methodological problems of episodic history, which has limited the understanding of historical experience in its entirety.

The author highlights Fernand Braudel’s criticism of episodic history, who argued that temporal distance was essential to separate the transcendent from the accidental in history. Braudel considered that history should be studied from a long-term perspective, which would allow us to understand the structures of daily life and civilizations as historical continuities.

Despite recognizing the importance of Braudel’s criticism, Suárez argues that there are still central aspects of episodic history that have not been questioned. These aspects include the idea of ​​the uniqueness of historical matter, the association of history with the unrepeatable, and historical explanation with the teleological. Suárez maintains that the analysis of these points would allow a better understanding of the historical experience.

In the book, Suárez addresses these aspects in four chapters. In the first, he questions the idea of ​​the uniqueness of historical matter and argues that there are general regularities and principles in history that should not be trivialized. In the second chapter, he analyzes the theses of historical cause and explanation by reasons, highlighting the importance of causal analysis in historical understanding. In the third chapter, he examines narrativist theses and the relationship between the rhetoric of historical discourse and political theory. In the fourth chapter, he analyzes RH Collingwood’s approaches to the self-knowledge of the mind in history.

Overall, Suárez’s book is an important contribution to theoretical reflection on history. The author demonstrates extensive knowledge of theoretical and historiographic currents, and his work will be very useful for students, teachers and researchers interested in history.

What does the word judge mean?

The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) is the association of academies of the Spanish language in charge of publishing the Dictionary of the Spanish Language in its Tercentenary edition. In its 2022 update, the RAE offers resources such as UNIDRAE, linguistic consultations, grammar, spelling, Corpes XXI, DHLE, archive, bulletins, among others. Thanks to its commitment to culture, it is possible to search for words in the twenty-third edition of the dictionary. For example, the word “judge” is defined as the action of a judge or court to determine whether a behavior or fact is contrary to the law and sentence accordingly. It can also mean forming an opinion about something or someone, considering someone in a certain way, believing or giving an opinion on something, or affirming relationships between ideas in the philosophical field. The conjugation of the verb “judge” in its different tenses and modes is also available. The RAE, in its Tercentenary edition, offers a reference guide and a citation mode to facilitate the use of the dictionary. All rights reserved.


The difference between criticizing and judging is that criticizing involves analyzing and evaluating something constructively, while judging involves making a value judgment without taking all aspects into account.

Source link

You are viewing: What is the difference between judging and explaining?