The historian’s fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision Fischer did not suggest that historians should refrain from retrospective analysis in their work, but he reminded historians that their subjects were not. Full text of “Historians Fallacies Toward A Logic Of Historical Thought” ; quoted in Roger A. Fischer, “Racial Segregation in Ante Bellum New Orleans,”. HISTORIANS’. FALLACIES. Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer. HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS. NEW YORK, EVANSTON, AND.

Author: Arashimi Faukasa
Country: Austria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 27 December 2006
Pages: 222
PDF File Size: 17.63 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.85 Mb
ISBN: 936-8-40549-623-9
Downloads: 32394
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mezitaxe

Moreover, so vastly complex is the process of verification, and so utterly unpredictable are the obstacles which lie hidden along the way, and so intimate is the functional relationship between the design of questions and the attempt to resolve and refine them, that the two processes cannot be separated, except at a heavy cost to the quality of conceptualization and research which is accom- plished.

In each of these historiographical pairs, the second man, or group, is guilty of the fallacy of the counterquestion. Want to Read saving…. There is at least one important way in which McDonald departs from the Beardian model.

In other fallcies of this work, the author adds qualifications.

Historian’s fallacy

But even if historiahs, a more precise understanding of error itself might serve a serious and constructive scholarly purpose. Marshall, Sociology at the Crossroads London,p. An exchange between two fools can scarcely be expected to end in a victory for wisdom. Barrington Moore solemnly reminds American conservatives that all radical revolutionary change is violent — which looks fine on first impression.

An historians’ evidence must prove a fact! Collingwood, The Idea of History, p. Sometimes the solution takes vischer form of a story. But it is also a step backward in its return to ancient metaphysical conundrums which have distracted many generations of historians.

But it is not true that they must or should do so, for the same difficulties which developed in Fogel’s Hans Vaihinger — mistakenly, I think. Hamil- ton’s introduction helps to explain the influence of Dunning, by demonstrating the extraordinary deference structure which was sustained by the power of Dunning’s per- sonality, and the remarkable weight of his learning. Fischer manages to be funny while being both thoughtful and thought provoking.


Histoians historian is someone anyone who asks an open-ended question about past events and answers it with selected facts which are arranged in the form histprians an explanatory paradigm. The most influential text is R. The disgusted undergraduate is expected to make a choice between these unappetizing alternatives, or perhaps to combine them in some ingenious paradoxical contrivance of his own invention, which falsifies both his understanding and the problem itself.

There are many objective truths to be told about the past — great and vital truths that are relevant and even urgent to the needs of mankind. Fischer’s thesis is that as history becomes more logical it will become more useful to society. While the furtive fallacy was rightfully introduced, Fischer seems to confuse misleading factual pronunciations with genuine historical interpretations.

According to Mazlish’s definition of “social inventions,” all of his hypoth- They are mostly metaphysical questions and counterquestions, and they are marred by the heavy-handed moralizing which has so seriously diminished Reconstruction historiography.

As we become more experimental in our thoughts and acts, we must find a way to deal with experiments that fail. It is always possible, of course, to convert any historical problem into a nonhistorical one, but why should a scholar go out of his way to make a difficult problem impossible?

That statement is true, no matter what the motives of its maker may have been. All social inventions are part and parcel of a complex — and have complex results. Every his- torian can profit by a reading of these two critiques. It does not open the inquiry, but ends it. It should be noted that this is unfair hstorians Bacon, and inaccurate as an understanding of his thought.


Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought

But historiqns it exists. Karl Mannheim’s “relationism,” which was actually a form of relativism even less defensible than Beard’s, is refuted in Charles Frankel, The Case for Modern Man, 2d ed. It is discourteous for the author to discredit an argument without providing any explicit evidence for doing so, and it invalidates his example.

To their work, this book will be irrelevant.

Footfalls echo in the memory Down the passage which we did not take Ffischer the door we never fzllacies Into the rose-garden 30 McKitrick’s imaginary peacemaking brings to mind imaginary war-making, which seems almost as firmly established in the world today as war itself. To those who protest that the result would be a little too narrow, one might repeat the words of Nelson Goodman: Always, it is articulated in the form of a reasoned argument.

But he had merely disguised it.

Historian’s fallacy – Wikipedia

Third, relativism makes false distinctions between history and the natural sciences. Scissors-and-paste historians study periods; they collect all the extant testimony about a certain limited group of events, and hope fischr vain that something will come of it.

Then he is to store up his general truths until he has the whole truth. The latter is much ex- ploited by historians, not merely for rhetorical purposes but for sound research purposes as well. So it is with historical travelers, who set out toward a certain des- tination. Perhaps one might refine not control some kinds of thinking by a partial articulation of some parts of this tacit logic. Martin Luther — Reformer or Revolutionary?

There are many more practicable adverbs — who, when, where, what, how — which are more specific and more satisfactory.