- This topic has 5 voices and 50 replies.
-
Posts
-
If Gavin Menzies is right, I'd like to read about the evidences. I know that our knowledge depends on what we are able to accept or to find, however this didn't occur about his claims …yet. History is a "social science" therefore subjective. I don't want to choose between Galileo and the Inquisition ! :-[
History is a "social science" therefore subjective.
I VERY much disagree with this statement. History is absolute.
If Gavin Menzies is right, I'd like to read about the evidences. I know that our knowledge depends on what we are able to accept or to find, however this didn't occur about his claims ...yet. History is a "social science" therefore subjective. I don't want to choose between Galileo and the Inquisition ! :-[
Everything is relative, right?
I would like to be careful while stating that History as a social science is subjective !! When you look at the etymology of History, it comes from the Greek language, meaning investigation. That's what historians are doing, have a look at the history of History throughout time... 😛 G. M. Trevelyan reasserted the principle of history as an art as well as a scientific study.But historians are observers and participants, the works they produce are written from the perspective of their own time and sometimes with due concern for possible lessons for their own future.I remember when I was still a student at the university that our professors especially insisted about the respect of the historical method: source criticism, external and internal criticisms and so on.That's why I stated about subjectivism in History. :-[
Of course there is many historical facts. The only thing that can change is how we “interpret” (understand) them.
What exactly is there to interpret when a particular country lost a war, changed leaders, shrunk, grew, had a civil war, etc. etc.?
What exactly is there to interpret when a particular country lost a war, changed leaders, shrunk, grew, had a civil war, etc. etc.?
After we have the facts of an event (what happened)... we need answers to the following:--why it matters (in and of itself)?--can we apply this info to other cases (can it help us understand other cases)?--it there a universal thread (or pattern) here or is this an anomaly?--can we use this info to formulate a hypothesis of some sort?--can we use what we've learned (in the steps above) to make predictions?Ala Bloom's or the Scientific Method.
Of course there is many historical facts. The only thing that can change is how we "interpret" (understand) them.
So you are a deconstructionist? there is a difference between historical theory as to causes and historical fact as to events and timelines. I agree that it is perfectly valid to disagree over causes(that is what makes history fun). Where I draw the line at is demonizing those that disagree with a particular interpretation. that is nothing more than trying to impose orthodoxy and stifles debate. It also smacks of totalinarianism, people are excluded if they dont toe the party line.Interpretation is subjective, but history does not have to be. It must be based on critical research and a sober assessment of sources.
Interpretation is subjective, but history does not have to be. It must be based on critical research and a sober assessment of sources.
Who is making the critical research and sober assessment ? A human !! Someone who will interpret, analyse and comment about a historical fact according his culture, education and philosophy of his time. History is made of human facts; it's not chemistry , physics or mathematics !
Interpretation is subjective, but history does not have to be. It must be based on critical research and a sober assessment of sources.
Who is making the critical research and sober assessment ? A human !! Someone who will interpret, analyse and comment about a historical fact according his culture, education and philosophy of his time. History is made of human facts; it's not chemistry , physics or mathematics !
As long as we couch our comments with a disclaimer and entertain other ideas I can agree with you both. Comment:Bias is like the filter on a camera lens; the filter may appear transparent but it distorts the light to an extent. If we know it is there and what its "filter factor" is we still have an idea that the picture we have as a result isn't exactly as portrayed. If we don't know that it is there or what the "filter factor" is then we are unable to view the true depiction of the subject of the photo. We've all read authors that leave you wondering what they are really trying to tell us or what they are really thinking... too much filter. The ones that preach their doctrine or slam another give us, perhaps, too little filter.People like Menzies aren't real historians anymore than I am... he just askes some interesting questions and provides the answers he has found in his travels and investigations. It will be harder to prove him correct since many of the souces we'd like to find are (perhaps) lost to history... much easier to say he's not going to prove anything until he provides these same source. We call that being "between a rock and a hard place", where I come from.
The attachment is a clearer explaination of what I was driving at the other day… from an overhead that I used to use to explain how we gather and process information.[please forgive the errant r]
Interpretation is subjective, but history does not have to be. It must be based on critical research and a sober assessment of sources.
Who is making the critical research and sober assessment ? A human !! Someone who will interpret, analyse and comment about a historical fact according his culture, education and philosophy of his time. History is made of human facts; it's not chemistry , physics or mathematics !
The comment of a true post-modernist. Truth is what we want it to be I guess? Of course humans are capable of critical research and sober assessments, if I don't believe that then I must surely give up any faith I have in humanity to begin with. We are not strictly creatures of emotion, regardless what philosophers like Foucault say.
