Historians’ Fallacies Towards a Logic of Historical Thought

1. Historians’ Fallacies Towards a Logic of Historical Thought Andrew Abdou Graduate Research Methods and Scholarly Writing in the Social Sciences: Government and History Professors Doug and Joe Bond April 8th. 2013

2. Historians’ Fallacies Towards a Logic of Historical Thought Introduction Recap from Last Week’s Class

3. Background on Author University Professor and Earl Warren Professor of History at Brandeis University. • Education: • B.A. from Princeton University  • Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University • Teaches: • The American Revolution • The Literature of American History • Slavery and the American Civil War • World War II • Reading and Research in American History • Colloquium in American History • 27 Awards and Honors

4. Chapter 7- Fallacy of Motivation • Falsely assumes that people are intellectually and psychologically the same in all times, places, and circumstances. • People throughout history think entirely differently if for no other reason than their different surroundings and circumstances.

5. Chapter 8-The Fallacy of Composition • Occurs when an historian assumes that just because one member of a group fits one characteristic that the group itself does also. • It also occurs when an historian assumes that just because one member of a group fits one characteristic that every other individual in the group fits the same characteristic. • Assuming that all members of a group are the same is a very inaccurate and lazy way to write history. It is the job of an historian delve into the group and delineate the differences between the members of the group.


6. The Fallacy of the Perfect Analogy • Occurs when an historian takes two entities that are similar in some aspects and falsely infers that they are exactly similar. This is similar to the fallacies of generalization, in which the historian is comparing two things that are truly different in nature.

7. Chapter 9- Fallacy of Proof by Analogy • Is committed when an historian uses a common (or maybe not-so-common) analogy to represent the actual truth of a matter, or to explain an event(s), or to provide a stated cause for something that resulted. • An analogy CANNOT be reputable enough to explain ANY historical inquiry because an analogy isn't factual enough to have such powerful influence.

8. Chapter 10- Semantical Distortion • All historical interpretations are arguments, and they must conform to a logic of argumentation if they are to cohere as truth

9. Fallacy of Ambiguity • Consists in the use of a word or an expression which has two or more possible meanings, without sufficient specification of which meaning is intended • Another kind of ambiguity consists in using an old term in a new and different way without any warning to readers. • The black-or-white fallacy is when an historian describes two varying shades of gray (per se) as if they're black and white or totally different.

10. Questions/ Comments • Fischer thinks historians should spend all their time answering "what" and "how" questions and avoid trying to answer "why" questions. • Now "why" would he say that?