What is history?

[bhsmte]

Something to think about, then.



I don't know what that second part means - never have. I don't see how any object can have value unless there is a subject to value it. Do you mean that seeking truth pleases you?

I would think for many (and myself), assuring that history is as true as it can possibly be, is of great value.

If I want to learn about the civil war, I am going to pick the work of a historian who was out to seek the truth, to the best of his ability and applied the historical method as objectively as possible. When you look at controversial subjects or events, historians should give the reasoning behind why they have concluded what they have and to me, this helps one to determine how bias any particular historian may have been in their conclusions.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would think for many (and myself), assuring that history is as true as it can possibly be, is of great value.

Of course.

When you look at controversial subjects or events, historians should give the reasoning behind why they have concluded what they have ...

And they do, but that's different than claiming the vantage point of objective truth.

Take the stories about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology for example. There are many different versions regarding whether Scientology was created as part of a dare. Some versions say Heinlein made the dare, some say Asimov made it (and apparently Asimov is on the record as saying he made the dare). Some say it never happened.

I don't think anyone will ever know who is telling the truth, who is lying, and who just has a bad memory. Historians who study Scientology should admit such uncertainties. But then I expect they might take a position on which version they think most likely and proceed to defend it. Such a thing can be done with all sincerity without bringing resolution to the matter.

That doesn't mean a historian should not take a side. It doesn't mean resolution must be achieved.

And history is replete with such things.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course.



And they do, but that's different than claiming the vantage point of objective truth.

Take the stories about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology for example. There are many different versions regarding whether Scientology was created as part of a dare. Some versions say Heinlein made the dare, some say Asimov made it (and apparently Asimov is on the record as saying he made the dare). Some say it never happened.

I don't think anyone will ever know who is telling the truth, who is lying, and who just has a bad memory. Historians who study Scientology should admit such uncertainties. But then I expect they might take a position on which version they think most likely and proceed to defend it. Such a thing can be done with all sincerity without bringing resolution to the matter.

That doesn't mean a historian should not take a side. It doesn't mean resolution must be achieved.

And history is replete with such things.

I would not expect a historian to know the truth with 100% certainty. But, I would expect them to cite their sources and give reasoning, why they concluded as they did.

When this is examined, it is much easier to conclude who may have used personal bias in their conclusions.

 

[Resha Caner]

When this is examined, it is much easier to conclude who may have used personal bias in their conclusions.

My point is that the task is not to determine who was biased. Everyone is biased. The point is that historians explain their method so one can understand that bias - the context in which the conclusions were made.

You mentioned the Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg occurred July 1-3, 1863. That's the fact. Saying much more than that involves making conclusions. For example, my highschool American history class taught that Lee pushed into Pennsylvania in order to shock the Union by creating losses on their home turf. He did this to raise the ante because the original strategy (fight a defensive battle until the Union gets tired) wasn't working.

Later, in college, it was suggested that an alternative strategy had also failed - draw Britain into the war. Lincoln countered this in January 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation (Britain was VERY anti-slavery and the proclamation (which had little legal bite) took away the Southern claim that the war was about State's Rights).

Just recently I heard it suggested that Lee pushed into Pennsylvania as an attempt to draw troops away from Vicksburg and break the seige.

But I've also heard objections to each of those ideas. Maybe only one is right. Maybe there is some credibility to all of them. There is no definitive answer, and that lack of certainty has nothing to do with bias.

 

[bhsmte]

My point is that the task is not to determine who was biased. Everyone is biased. The point is that historians explain their method so one can understand that bias - the context in which the conclusions were made.

You mentioned the Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg occurred July 1-3, 1863. That's the fact. Saying much more than that involves making conclusions. For example, my highschool American history class taught that Lee pushed into Pennsylvania in order to shock the Union by creating losses on their home turf. He did this to raise the ante because the original strategy (fight a defensive battle until the Union gets tired) wasn't working.

Later, in college, it was suggested that an alternative strategy had also failed - draw Britain into the war. Lincoln countered this in January 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation (Britain was VERY anti-slavery and the proclamation (which had little legal bite) took away the Southern claim that the war was about States Rights).

Just recently I heard it suggested that Lee pushed into Pennsylvania as an attempt to draw troops away from Vicksburg and break the seige.

But I've also heard objections to each of those ideas. Maybe only one is right. Maybe there is some credibility to all of them. There is no definitive answer.

I think you are missing my point.

When you thoroughly examine the work of a historian and their conclusions and compare the same to other historians, you can see who gives more weight to certain criteria, or who may actually hand wave certain evidence away, that another historian is able to explain well enough that it needs to be taken into consideration.

It takes a lot of work on the part of the examiner, but it can reveal who is more likely to be leaning heavier on bias, than another.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think you are missing my point.

I get your point. I'm just disagreeing with it. But thanks for adding your view to the discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

I get your point. I'm just disagreeing with it. But thanks for adding your view to the discussion.

Is it your position then, that one can not determine which historian is using more personal bias in their work, when the justification for their position is examined and compared to the available evidence and other positions and justifications of other historians?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is it your position then, that one can not determine which historian is using more personal bias in their work, when the justification for their position is examined and compared to the available evidence and other positions and justifications of other historians?

Personal bias? I'm not sure what you're even suggesting ... well, I do but it's not relevant and not viable. To me uncovering personal bias would mean studying someone's personal history and maybe even performing a psychological analysis - in a professional capacity, not pop psychology.

That would be a massive undertaking unprecedented in any field, and so I would need to ask why history needs such special attention? I would suggest it is much easier to attend to the historical subject about which claims are being made, and to analyze how different historians approach said subject.

You still seem to be approaching this as if "evidence" will bring a definitive resolution to the right and wrong answers about subjective topics, and that those who persist in the "wrong" attitude can thereby be dismissed as improper adherents to the discipline. That's not how it works, so I guess I would answer your question with, "No."

 

[bhsmte]

Personal bias? I'm not sure what you're even suggesting ... well, I do but it's not relevant and not viable. To me uncovering personal bias would mean studying someone's personal history and maybe even performing a psychological analysis - in a professional capacity, not pop psychology.

That would be a massive undertaking unprecedented in any field, and so I would need to ask why history needs such special attention? I would suggest it is much easier to attend to the historical subject about which claims are being made, and to analyze how different historians approach said subject.

You still seem to be approaching this as if "evidence" will bring a definitive resolution to the right and wrong answers about subjective topics, and that those who persist in the "wrong" attitude can thereby be dismissed as improper adherents to the discipline. That's not how it works, so I guess I would answer your question with, "No."

Not difficult to quantify motivations of some who do historical work by looking at their backgrounds.

And I believe it is quite viable in many cases and not difficult to determine who is weighing certain criteria more than others and who may be ignoring certain evidence that points the other way. Is it perfect, no.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've always thought History was little more then what remains of the record. Since History in modern times is focused on geography, that is, most historians are expected to specialize in a specific geographical area I think that helps to form a criteria.

I found a Websters Dictionary definition of 'time' once that stuck with me. It defined 'time' as a 'systematic series of sequential events'. With that in mind you set out but determining what is regarded as evidence for events. If the determination is going to be predicated on tangible documents, artifacts and what can be known about the location(s) it seems to me it build on a foundation of a defining event.

The nice thing is that philosophy and other academic disciplines already have a broad spectrum of systems already developed. From a basic criteria the challenge is to organize around key nodes in the series of events.

I realize this is a bit general but let's say we have a special thesis, theme or focus. Just to pick one at random lets say the thesis is 'cultural centers are commercial centers', the parody is between culture (art, music, religion...etc) and commercial activities (trade, language, monetary standards...etc). To give it some structure you can add dates, places, sources and a kind of miniature, non mathematical matrix of sorts. Put simply, you just create a parallel lists and make the connections based on your criteria.

At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Not difficult to quantify motivations of some who do historical work by looking at their backgrounds.

You can quantify motivation? That's a new one for me.

If a historian is a Democrat, it definitely impacts their rendering of history. Likewise if someone is a Republican. But there is no neutral ground. Whatever one is, it impacts how he/she renders history.

For you to "quantify" their motivations sounds like a code word for digging for ulterior motives. Now you're into making claims based not on what history they present, but your opinion of their background. It's all about what they didn't say and he said/she said games. That's not history.

You need to address what they did say.

And I believe it is quite viable in many cases and not difficult to determine who is weighing certain criteria more than others and who may be ignoring certain evidence that points the other way. Is it perfect, no.

Weighing evidence? Again you're referencing something that has no real measure. If a historian does not mention or underplays evidence that another thinks is relevant, there is a process for that.

Are you looking for a final answer from history?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just to pick one at random lets say the thesis is 'cultural centers are commercial centers', the parody is between culture (art, music, religion...etc) and commercial activities (trade, language, monetary standards...etc). To give it some structure you can add dates, places, sources and a kind of miniature, non mathematical matrix of sorts. Put simply, you just create a parallel lists and make the connections based on your criteria.

I like your thesis.

And you hit upon an important point. The connections you draw are "based on your criteria." It's not as if culture and commercial activity has a hard and fast definition. But it's still a worthy subject to pursue.

 

[mark kennedy]

I like your thesis.

And you hit upon an important point. The connections you draw are "based on your criteria." It's not as if culture and commercial activity has a hard and fast definition. But it's still a worthy subject to pursue.

Culture and commerce are one possible example, of course it all depends on the criteria you are limiting yourself to. Culture and commerce would start to break down after you started getting into military history but if that was your primary point of reference, you run into a lot fewer dead ends. In other words if you get off on a tangent you at least know how to get back to square one.

 

[bhsmte]

You can quantify motivation? That's a new one for me.

If a historian is a Democrat, it definitely impacts their rendering of history. Likewise if someone is a Republican. But there is no neutral ground. Whatever one is, it impacts how he/she renders history.

For you to "quantify" their motivations sounds like a code word for digging for ulterior motives. Now you're into making claims based not on what history they present, but your opinion of their background. It's all about what they didn't say and he said/she said games. That's not history.

You need to address what they did say.



Weighing evidence? Again you're referencing something that has no real measure. If a historian does not mention or underplays evidence that another thinks is relevant, there is a process for that.

Are you looking for a final answer from history?

Nope. Simply looking for as much objectivity as is possible. Not easy to do, because it requires work.

 

[Paradoxum]

Something to think about, then.

I don't know what that second part means - never have. I don't see how any object can have value unless there is a subject to value it. Do you mean that seeking truth pleases you?

Yeah, I mean that truth can be value in itself... not that that it has value without someone valuing it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yeah, I mean that truth can be value in itself... not that that it has value without someone valuing it.

Thanks for clarifying. So does history help you with that?

Nope. Simply looking for as much objectivity as is possible. Not easy to do, because it requires work.

Sure.

You seem to indicate that perfect objectivity can't be achieved. Is that because it doesn't exist or because we're incapable of touching it? I would have the same question about truth (per Paradoxum's comment above).

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for clarifying. So does history help you with that?



Sure.

You seem to indicate that perfect objectivity can't be achieved. Is that because it doesn't exist or because we're incapable of touching it? I would have the same question about truth (per Paradoxum's comment above).

With history, the longer back you go, the harder it is to achieve certainty of events.

In regards to say the events of 9/11, I can be as close to 100% certain what happened because of the quality of the evidence. Go back centuries and centuries and the task gets a little tougher.

 

[Resha Caner]

With history, the longer back you go, the harder it is to achieve certainty of events.

OK, but I was asking why, so this didn't really answer it for me. Rather it only added another question: Why is time a factor?

 

[bhsmte]

OK, but I was asking why, so this didn't really answer it for me. Rather it only added another question: Why is time a factor?

Less reliable physical evidence. More difficult to substantiate the claims of those who may or may not have witnessed the event. Time has a way, of adding content to past events, through people with certain motivations.

 

[Resha Caner]

Less reliable physical evidence. More difficult to substantiate the claims of those who may or may not have witnessed the event.

Yes, primary sources are preferable to secondary sources. And primary sources can detiorate with time. Both true.

But if you have a forensic report that establishes the date of evidence, and you have some way to make exact replicas (photos of documents, video/voice recordings of interviews, etc.), does the quality of that evidence really deteriorate in a significant way?

Time has a way, of adding content to past events, through people with certain motivations.

Again, speculating about motivations is of little value without something to substantiate it - examples of tampering, conflicting accounts, etc. The point being, evidence is what resolves such things if there is really some issue of unprofessional conduct by a historian.

If you're not charging improper conduct, then it's all part of the process. Going in with an attitude that you don't like someone's personal views is a bad approach. Rather, one identifies the thesis and either supports it or argues against it. Rhetoric becomes the tool.