The historian’s fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision Fischer did not suggest that historians should refrain from retrospective analysis in their work, but he reminded historians that their subjects were not. Full text of “Historians Fallacies Toward A Logic Of Historical Thought” ; quoted in Roger A. Fischer, “Racial Segregation in Ante Bellum New Orleans,”. HISTORIANS’. FALLACIES. Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer. HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS. NEW YORK, EVANSTON, AND.

Author: Mezishicage Tell
Country: Montenegro
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 18 September 2018
Pages: 137
PDF File Size: 11.21 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.63 Mb
ISBN: 568-4-57478-324-5
Downloads: 33826
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akinom

Third, epistemologists have characteristically tried to analyze historical knowledge in terms of something else more familiar to them. He begins with a conventional complaint that the more we learn about Napoleon III, the less we really know. Some useful research has resulted, but in these ar- ticles of Mrs.

Informal fallacies Historiography introductions. The fact that it cannot pull down all wrong signs, or that pulling down is a destructive act, cannot be an argument against it. In these researches which require so much patience and so much effort, so much prudence and so much boldness, the opportunities for error are innumerable, and none can hope to escape it.

Even if that is true, and I don’t believe it is, the metaphysical questions are still the most interesting to beings who can’t be reduced to the physical realm. But, I did learn something substantial in that first chapter: Their works included Francis B. From that source alone, much could be discovered about the polity of Massachusetts Bay, most of which Mrs. Instead, they in- vented answers of magnificent absurdity as an act of homage to a man who was himself a consistent living argument for republicanism.

Nonetheless, this is a nicely-done guide to common errors in historical writing, and very much worth reading. Logics have a way of multiplying in response to the changes in point of view. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written pcrmiasoo except in the case of brief quota- tions embodied in critical articles and reviews.


None can be vindi- cated except in its application; none can be proclaimed to the world as The Method; and none is other than a useful tool, or more than an ap- proximate tool.

Preconceived notions are a much greater danger to historical truth than either deficiency of evidence or error in detail [he wrote].

Their antiheroes villains are out of fashion are blunderers and bunglers of all persuasions.

His work suggests that there is a fair and steady offshore breeze which is blowing historians clear of the rocks and shoals of metaphysics, though some seem determined an ambiguity is intended to know the excitement of a shipwreck, which is the only kind of metaphysical finality that is open to them.

Every point pounded is confusion compounded. The “problems” that appear in these pamphlets are not merely a result of faulty pedagogical practice. The Public Roads Commission does not need to put up signs everywhere but only at the doubtful intersections.

Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer

Among my professional brethren, there is even a band of methodological Nullbruder, who flaunt their intellectual poverty as if it were a badge of grace, and flourish all the rusty instruments of ignorance in the face of every effort at reform.

The main reason may be that so many of such fallacies are encountered so often on the internet, on blogs and forums, even those claiming to be histprians most reasonable, fair, and “logical,” and in newspapers and television news historins, where they seem to have undergo random evolution “How intriguing are the fallacies that lead men’s minds astray.

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Unlike the mind of many fischerr revisionist, it did so explicitly and deliberately in his first book: Jan 07, Matt rated it liked it. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.

Be the first to ask a question about Historians’ Fallacies. Joseph’s assumption that “If it is useful to have a nomenclature of fallacies, it is useful to have a standard nomenclature. But always it exists. Third, the question of the rallacies of railroads is com- parable to the problem of the “inevitability” of the Civil War. Not perfect, but worth a read for anyone interested in writing history.


This refining tendency suggests that an interpretative refinement in Mississippi ; R. But it is not true that they must or should do so, for the same difficulties which developed in Fogel’s Hans Vaihinger — mistakenly, I think.

Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought

It is also an imprecise question, for the adverb “why” is slippery and difficult to define. It is also one fa,lacies the most daring. All social inventions develop in stages, and have different effects during different parts of their development.

I also hope that this makes it clear that you may distinguish the “why” from the “what” and “how” and even “who” questions, but you will never separate it from those topics.

Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought – David Hackett Fischer – Google Books

In an elaborate and sophisticated study of Andrew Johnson and the American Reconstruction, which was written in the years of the Eisenhower “consensus,” McKitrick wondered if “an imaginary peace-making” might have been arranged between two influential Americans — Wade Hampton, a supposititious spokesman for the South Carolina “establishment,” and John Andrew, allegedly of the Massachusetts “establishment. He will probably be able to find “evidence” sufficient to illus- trate his expectations, if not actually to sustain them.

And the process of historical truth-telling itself is even more intricate than the truths which historians tell.

Toward a Logic of Historical Thought By. The fallacy of contradictory questions is the framing of a ques- tion which is false by definition and contradicts itself.