History and Theory 43 (1):18-38 (2004)

Authors
Abstract
Those who think that general historical interpretations do no more than express a personal point of view deny that arguments over their credibility can have any point. They commonly believe that historians decide upon particular facts about the past in the context of a general interpretation of those facts. Consequently they deny that there is any independent basis for judging the credibility of general interpretations of the past, and conclude that each coherent account is as good as every other. Similarly, those who think causal explanations are arbitrary can make no sense of arguments about their adequacy. They assume that historians simply pick out causes that interest them, and that there is no objective basis for judging the adequacy of the explanations they provide. This essay defends the credibility of interpretations against the skeptics, and the adequacy of causal explanations too. It shows that historians do discover a mass of particular facts independently of the general interpretations they finally provide, facts that provide a basis for assessing the credibility and fairness of those interpretations. It will also show that there is an objective basis for judging the adequacy of causal explanations, as some causes of an event are far more influential in bringing it about than others. A much more difficult problem concerns the need for historical interpretations to provide not just a credible account of the past, but also one that is fair, balanced, not misleading. Historians frequently argue about the fairness of general interpretations. Does this mean that fairness is always required? Quite often historians produce partial interpretations, in both senses, with no apology. It would be wrong to call such interpretations “biased” because they do not pretend to be comprehensive. So long as they are credible, they are acceptable. On the other hand, many interpretations are intended to present a fair, comprehensive account of their subject. When judging the adequacy of interpretations, it is necessary to know whether they are meant to be fair or not
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2004.00263.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,843
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Pictorial Art and Epistemic Aims.Jochen Briesen - 2014 - In Harald Klinke (ed.), Art Theory as Visual Epistemology. Cambridge Scholars Press. pp. 11-28.
Do Historians Need Philosophy?Raymond Martin - 2006 - History and Theory 45 (2):252–260.
Do Historians Need Philosophy?Raymond Martin - 2006 - History and Theory 45 (2):252-260.
British Marxist Historians: An Appraisal.Antony Kalashnikov - 2013 - Constellations (University of Alberta Student Journal) 4 (1).
What Can History Do for Bioethics?Duncan Wilson - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (4):215-223.
Historians and Moral Evaluations.Richard T. Vann - 2004 - History and Theory 43 (4):3–30.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
49 ( #209,045 of 2,427,270 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #540,061 of 2,427,270 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes