|
Many historians have widely different explanations of the past. Can we work out which one to believe? Do we have to choose only one interpretation of history? Some historians based their histories on written documents, so “history” only goes back to when writing was invented, about 12,000 years ago. Before that was “pre-historical”. Others use scientific techniques to go back further than the written records. What can we believe? Isn’t history written by the winners? The losers have died, or just don’t get books published. How can we believe anything when everyone looks at the world from their own perspective? |
3.1 Historical Method Conclusions (Statement
14)
History,
like science, must be an open, transparent, critical process, based on
reasoning, evidence, peer review, and persuasion rather than accepting any
authority.
● There
is a lot of over simplified, biased or bogus history, used to promote one
country or a religion or a government’s position, based on a small selection of
facts, closed to other points of view, drawing conclusions not supported by all
the evidence, and presented as the truth that all should believe;
● But
overall, as historians learn more, and more evidence is considered, and the
interpretations are widely debated to discover the most reasonable ones, our historical
explanations are revised, becoming more comprehensive;
● Some
say that we can only know parts of what happened – individual stories, specific
scientific or historical facts – and that it is dangerous to assemble these
facts into an overall story – because this will inevitably be simplified,
leaving out important facts, perhaps falsely saying one event caused another, when
in reality the causes are to complex to analyse;
● But
seeing the big picture, developing a global narrative, can help us understand
where we come from as peoples, so we can learn from history, even if we do have
to be aware of the risk of error and that we may learn more in future;
● So
when we make choices about our actions, history helps by showing what has
happened before, what has worked and what has failed. We must try to learn from our mistakes.
History should, like science, be an open, transparent, critical process to discover “historical facts” of what happened in the past, including written descriptions and other documents made at the time as well as other scientific evidence (eg from archaeology), and to discover trends and relationships between these “facts” which help us to understand our past and perhaps provide insights into our possible futures, making this all available to peer review.
The process is based on
persuasion rather than unquestioned authority, valuing truth, uncertainty,
diversity, respect, language. We need to hold our historical
beliefs tentatively, because our knowledge of “the facts” of history and our
interpretations of historical events will change as we discover more specific
details, as we consider wider contexts, improve our reasoning and gain
more insights.
There is a lot of over simplified, biased or simply bogus (completely made up) history, which is based on a small selection of facts, closed to other points of view, drawing conclusions not supported by all the evidence, or presented as dogma not to be questioned.
As our historical explanations become more reasonable and comprehensive, when we have to make choices about our actions, history helps by showing what has happened before, what has worked and what has failed, what is most skilful.