Historians' Fallacies
For the next few weeks, we will be working through Historians' Fallacies. Fischer talks about the use of good logic in historical reasoning. What are some of the examples he gives of fallacious historical reasoning? Can you make any connections between what Fischer argues and Carr's comments on the nature of history? Post your chapter summaries and responses to this week's discussion questions by clicking on the comment button. You will also be able to reply to the various postings by the teams here too.
posted by Dr. Deborah Vess @ 7:32 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I am curious about what you thought of Fishcer's list of historians' fallacies. Did you find him convincing? Did you note any evidence of bias in his own reading of some of these examples? WHat of teh actual fallacies he lists? Do you think they are as common as he implies? If so, what might this suggest about history adn its approach to the past? If Fischer thinks these methods or reasoning patterns invalid, then what new methods is he presenting, substituting, or suggesting?
Donnie, confusion is not necessarily a bad thing. In professional circles we call that cognitive dissonance. Confusion often prompts you to search further for a resolution to those things that appear contradictory. As Joey said, it is important to remember that your graduate courses are fundamentally different from undergrad courses. You are asked to do an entirely different kind of work and to be far more analytical. It is hard to move in that direction without some background in the various schools of thought on the nature of history. Carr presents one school;Fischer presents a number of points about the historical reasoning process, and as we move on, we'll be exposed to other historians and their particular beliefs about the nature of history. You may not agree wtih all, and cannot, as some are mutually incompatible. However, I do believe Fischer exposes a number of fallacious patterns of reasoning in which historians might engage, and these are things we all need to be careful of in our own work.
It is nice to see everyone attempting to process their thoughts on the blog. Keep it up. The more you write the deeper may be your understanding of a particular topic.
Donnie, confusion is not necessarily a bad thing. In professional circles we call that cognitive dissonance. Confusion often prompts you to search further for a resolution to those things that appear contradictory. As Joey said, it is important to remember that your graduate courses are fundamentally different from undergrad courses. You are asked to do an entirely different kind of work and to be far more analytical. It is hard to move in that direction without some background in the various schools of thought on the nature of history. Carr presents one school;Fischer presents a number of points about the historical reasoning process, and as we move on, we'll be exposed to other historians and their particular beliefs about the nature of history. You may not agree wtih all, and cannot, as some are mutually incompatible. However, I do believe Fischer exposes a number of fallacious patterns of reasoning in which historians might engage, and these are things we all need to be careful of in our own work.
It is nice to see everyone attempting to process their thoughts on the blog. Keep it up. The more you write the deeper may be your understanding of a particular topic.
With these last two books, we have seen two different ideas about what is historical 'truth', and how the historian goes about finding it. I think that the debate can be seperated between two groups. One might call one side positivists and the opposite side phenomenalists. The positivst believes some things are knowable and we can verify them emperically. The phenomenalist argues that all we can know is what we gather through our own sense experience, and even then what we know is only meaningful to us. In order for the discipline of history to continue and thrive, we must fall somewhere in the middle. My favorite historian N.T. Wright describes this position as critical realism. The important concept here is that knowledge, though dealing with realities outside of the knower, is never independent of the knower. When investigating past events, people, etc. we must keep several things in mind. First, we all see things through our own point of view. And second, our point of view is influenced with culture, stories, etc.
In my opinion what we must do is approach history from the bottom up approach. Begin our research with what we can emperically verify and work from there. I think the Fischer book will be helpful in keeping us on track in that regard. Though his text was shocking to some, I felt that it simplified the discipline of history. That does not mean it was made irrelevent or trite. Completely the contrary. Now that the epistemology of history is somewhat clarified, we can begin to discuss history with a better understanding of the terms.
I think that lindsay brings up some interesting questions. I feel that demonizing and sanctifying people and historical events are unavoidable. Whether we admit it or not, most people will always look back at the holocaust and place a moral judgement on the nazis. The point that must be emphasized is that this should not be done by the historian. I go back to a previous point in the book when I believe Fischer said that there are so many other facts to consider, we dont need to waste our time making moral judgements and delving into metaphysical questions. It is important to note that this is not saying to report history without any subjectivity. This after all is impossible. Fischer is merely trying to hammer home the point that a 'good' historian leaves his subjectivity at the door, at least as much as he/she can.
Post a Comment
<< Home