Hmm. I was a little tired and rushed when I wrote this. There are a few thoughts I’d like to add concerning historiography.
As I said above, history, because of its subjective nature, is always influenced by the historian’s bias. Historiography could maybe be called the study of these biases, but is in itself subject to the same flaws.
No historian’s viewpoint on a historical event will be fully objective. But just because no approach can be perfect, does not mean that all approaches can be equally imperfect. My question isn’t so much about how to be a rational historian, but more: is there a rational way to evaluate the relative worths of different historical viewpoints?
Hmm. I was a little tired and rushed when I wrote this. There are a few thoughts I’d like to add concerning historiography.
As I said above, history, because of its subjective nature, is always influenced by the historian’s bias. Historiography could maybe be called the study of these biases, but is in itself subject to the same flaws.
No historian’s viewpoint on a historical event will be fully objective. But just because no approach can be perfect, does not mean that all approaches can be equally imperfect. My question isn’t so much about how to be a rational historian, but more: is there a rational way to evaluate the relative worths of different historical viewpoints?