3.0.1 How We Do History - Overview

Version 1.2 March 2012                                               (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 (eg 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 open for peer review and allow for informed diversity.

There is a lot of over simplified, biased or simply 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.  In theory, the subject matter of history is finite: one world over a few tens of thousands of years. 

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 courage, an aspect of our core value choice of life.