For my Historical Research Methods graduate class we are required to read David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. Now I picked this book up and thumbed through it at a Border’s store a few years ago and did not buy it, why? (Bad question, but more on that later.) Because with my cursory view of it, it looked confusing and boring. Hence, my opinion based on no facts nor evidence!
According to Fisher, there are, you guessed it, a range of assumptions that a lot of historians make when they are writing about history. These “fallacies” hopelessly doom the work of some historians as flawed.
If you were an aspiring historian and read this book, you might be convinced to give it up for doing such things as starting your research by asking “Why” can lead to a “metaphysical question” and, according to Fisher, you would be starting with an “imprecise” question. Questions should be framed within the “How, When, Where, What” variety. The variety of “Fallacies” to avoid is incredible and ultimately overwhelming yet, the gist of Fisher’s argument and the theme of his book has merit and is much food for thought!
As a matter of fact, one of the worst questions to ask, according to Fisher, is the “Was the War inevitable?” in regards to the American Civil War. Why? Darn, there I go again…
Anyway, because, as Fisher says, these types of questions come down to asking if something were “evitable” or “inevitable” and this is opinion. Hence, my not picking up and reading Fisher’s book was based on my opinion and nothing more!
Fisher has his heart in the right place and does seek to help fledgling historians consider all aspects of their research and writing. The framing of our questions are as essential as the means and ways in which we answer them, or attempt to answer them.
Fisher writes, “Historians who seek to frame factual questions and to verify factual answers almost always do so in order to elicit a historical explanation of some sort.” (p.100). When they should simply do so “for the sake of the facts themselves.”
It all comes down to historical objectivity and is there truly an objective historian?
Some years back in the op-ed pages of the New York Times was a brief excerpt from The Great Wave, by David Hackett Fischer. The excerpt put my own thoughts into words and put evidence behind them. So I bought the book and loved it.
A few years later I was browsing a bookstore, looking for something on logic or on being convincing or on making better arguments. My eye caught a title: Historian’s Fallacies. Oh!, I thought, I found something!. When I took the book in my hand I couldn’t believe who wrote it: David Hackett Fischer!
Both books have been near the top of the pile (so to speak) ever since.
My current activity is a project to teach myself about Austrian economics: I am parsing a month’s worth of Mises Daily email articles. I want to understand the economics of it, apart from the politics and all else. It was an empty search for “appeal to ego” that brought me to DHF:HF on my bookshelf, then on line, and ultimately here to your blog.
If your critical eye is itching, I would welcome your thoughts on my thoughts on Mises’ thoughts:
http://austriananalysis.blogspot.com/
I’m only a few days into this, FYI.
I disagree on Fischer. As an historian, I have found his book essential to my writing. He consistently calls me back from intellectual escapades and fantasies and demands that I reconsider every conclusion I am convinced is “historically”-based. I found the book very engaging and amusing. It is required reading for anyone who is seriously interested in improving his analysis of history and it application to present or anticipated scenarios.
Mr. Parker, thanks for responding, what specifically did you disagree with? I am confused….
Chris