First, because strict examination of history based on a chronology and conclusive evidence can aid in discerning bias from genuine fact, historians should utilize the scientific method of research. Although Oscar Handlin admits that historians are never "totally free of bias" (7), he does claim that removing facts from interpretations eliminates bias, opinionated statements, and fiction from history, which is supposedly the chief goal and use of history (Handlin 5). On the contrary, when scholars employ William McNeill's method of investigating history through interpretation, biased and one-sided analyses emerge, and, therefore,…
To be able to properly analyze these claims, however, the definitions of an expert and a pure fact must be established. An expert will be defined as someone who is trained or selected to fulfil a particular role. While this definition may be flexible, it encompasses all experts that will be discussed, namely historians, lawyers, and jurors. In the context of this essay, evidence is defined as an undisputable fact which allows for conclusions to be drawn which are disputable.…
- The scholars regardless need to publish their work, with the evidence they found but it can be a bit hard to understand what really happened in the past because there will be a lot of different theories, evidence and events being published. Snow’s statement is persuasive because we use the evidence in the way we want to use it, leading to defending our ideas. All the scholars are introduced reasonably due to all of their theories being possible and all have sufficient amount of evidence to support them.…
2. There are many scholarly disagreements about the research described in 1491. If our knowledge of the past is based on the findings of scholars, what happens to the past when scholars don’t agree? How convincing is anthropologist Dean R. Snow’s statement, "you can make the meager…
"And when memory failed and written records were falsifiedwhen that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested." Book 1 Ch. VIII…
William K. Clifford sets out to show in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence…” In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as “insufficient” evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results.…
There are many ways that experts in a discipline disagree with one another; given the same facts. Through various areas of knowledge, there has been countless evidence of the possibility of disagreement between experts. Usually people who are adept in their field think very differently than other experts in their discipline. They may interpret certain facts differently, and with divergent thinking comes disagreements. In this essay, with reference to human sciences and history, I will explain how experts can sometimes have disputes within a discipline, given the same facts.…
When putting words to paper, each person has their own creative method. This rings especially true when writing about history. With the seemingly endless supply of information and accounts, no two readings or viewings will contain the same exact information or viewpoint. Deciding which resource to agree with or more importantly to relate too often times prove difficult, as simply reading the information without further deliberation as to the authenticity may lead one down an incomplete path. This paper will discuss in large part the differences of two particular passages and which of the two I found most persuasive.…
One of the primary questions concerning epistemology is that of how we justify true beliefs? The regress argument is a problem imbedded in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any given situation where a statement or belief has to be justified.…
Coombs (1992) identified 10 bases upon which claims of legitimacy are based: (1) tradition, or legitimacy based on history…
The final part of the introduction claims that the trustworthiness of the theological issues is contingent upon the trustworthiness of the historical claims.…
Like all academic fields, there is much room for debate in the discipline of history. This is attributed to the analysis and interpretation that is involved when drawing conclusions, and both of which are affected by an individual’s subjectivity. However, Prior to a certain point, there was little room for interpretation or disagreement in history, as it was simply considered a retelling of facts. However, there eventually came the realisation that ‘facts’ are always recounted from a perspective, and that humans are more complex than simply a sequence of events. Thus, the writing of history evolved, and the whole understanding of how history related to modern times was altered, resulting in the works like Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime…
Schommer-Aikens & Hutter’s (2002) deliberates the methodology using a pair of surveys from the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (Schommer, 1990). The outcome of the examination of the participant’s answers from this questionnaire is exhibiting their beliefs as well thought-out by the surveys and sample articles starting with the slightest controversy to the greatest (Schommer-Aikens & Hutter, 2002). The essay confers the difference of opinion between the uses of epistemological beliefs when searching for…
Natural epistemology suggests that this method of foundationalism fails to sufficiently argue against the skepticism that this method regresses the validity of the argument by…
A person has also the right to be wrong. But a textbook has no right to be wrong; or to evade the truth, falsity history, or insult and malign a whole race of people. That is what the textbook do” (Henry, 1970) It is different to write a general book and a history book. A general book can be fiction, but a history book must tell the truth. The question is, can history book really tell the truth? The answer is no. It is no such thing as an unbiased book. Every communication expresses the views of individuals making them. In the case of books, those views are fixed in aspic for all who dip at any time in the future into that particular confection. (Klein, 2002) Every one has a unique viewpoint which he subconsciously brings to bear on all incoming sensory material; totally objectivity is just not possible for anyone. History book are inherently biased because of the personal influence and interpretation of historians. Historians put their own biases in every aspect of collecting data and presenting it. All of the material would be part fact, part inference, part judgment, and part…