3.0.1 How We Do History - Overview

Version 1.4 September 2022                                        (Previous Version)

How we come to our conclusions is a major part of this reasonable global way.

History should, like science, be an open, transparent, critical process to discover “historical facts� of what happened in the past.  These include written documents made at the time, as well as scientific evidence (e.g. from archaeology).  History’s goal is then to discover trends and relationships between this evidence that help us to understand our past and perhaps provide insights into our possible futures.  As with science, the whole process must be open for peer review, and allow for a diversity of informed opinion.

Some say that we can never know what really happened, but only know parts of it – individual stories, specific scientific or historical facts – and that it is dangerous to assemble these facts into an overall story that is inevitably simplified, omitting major issues, perhaps falsely saying one event caused another; the causes are too complex.  But developing a global narrative helps us understand where we came from, so we can learn from history, acknowledging the risk of error, and we may learn even more in the future.

There is a lot of over simplified, biased or completely false history, used to promote a country, religion, ethnic group or government.  This is often dogmatic, based on a small selection of facts, ignoring alternative views, and drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence.

But good history, like science, is based on persuasion, not unquestioned authority.  As time goes on, historians discover more “facts�, review the old “facts�, consider evidence from a wider range of sources and take a more global perspective.  Debating historical interpretations leads to improved reasoning and further insights.  Over time our historical explanations are revised, becoming less parochial, more comprehensive and more reliable.

We discuss history following some major themes, especially technology (from hunting and gathering to settled kingdoms, through industrialization to the current ‘information age’) and commerce (from bartering, to money, to the current global financial systems) and their impact on not only nation states and war but also on the well-being and psychology of ordinary people.

Some might say that a statement about the historical method isn't a conclusion but a method for arriving at historical conclusions.  But history shows that we do need to state, and debate, our conclusions on how we should go about history.  Many people define themselves in part by their history, and view it emotionally rather than objectively, and narrowly rather than widely.

As our historical knowledge expands, it helps when we have to make choices, by showing more reliably what has been tried before, what worked, what failed: what is the most skilful.

We work through the next level of detail on each of the above issues (more).  After considering this evidence, we’ve looked for a way to state our conclusions briefly, and we come to the following summary.

Is this the best way to state our conclusions in this area?  Click on feedback, or add a comment below, if you can improve the substance or the phrasing.

more                                                                                Statement 14

Good historical methodologies, like the scientific method, are consistent with, and rely on,

● core values such as truth, diversity and responsibility and

● derived values, such as transparency, honesty, uncertainty, respect, reason and evidence.

To face up to a new understanding of history that affects our identity and our part the world, takes some humility (a value derived from diversity and equality) and courage (an ancillary value).