The Rape Of Nanking By Iris Chang: An Analysis

In response to how the same information formulates disagreeing opinions between experts in a particular discipline, I have recognized a few main ways in which differing viewpoints are produced. Firstly, pre-established beliefs and notions can affect the way in which people perceive purely factual information. Secondly, the factual information may be presented in such a way that it is emotionally charged while still maintaining a purely factual nature. These trends are particularly evident within the disciplines of judicial ethics and history.

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.

More often than not, experts intentionally form opinions that differ from one another in order to form critical pluralism. The reasoning behind this is the belief which best
This is largely because historians come from a variety of different backgrounds, including but not being limited to different countries, cultures, and government systems. One example of this can be seen through the book The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang. This text argued that a Japanese onslaught of the Chinese city of Nanking was genocide, which made other historians speculative. They claimed that the intent of the Japanese Army was not to eliminate the Chinese race but to maintain control over the public during their presence, and therefore the event should not be classified as genocide. At this point, many experts seem to hold this point of view. So, why did Chang dissent with