History departments and the search for truth

[jastay3]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

[SWJED]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

Myself and at least one other moderator have sent you a PM - one - introduce yourself and - two - think about whether this board is the right place for you. Frankly, your posts are not much more than 'thinking out loud' musings and quite boring to boot. Did you look around here before posting? Did you check out the backgrounds of the members? I think not.

Dave Dilegge

[Steve Blair]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

This looks to be pseudo-intellectual naval-gazing. Dielbruk and his followers were believers in objective history, but it's been demonstrated time and again that this isn't possible due to (among other reasons) available sources. There is always bias in primary sources. The best a historian can hope to achieve, in my view, is a rendering of the sources and their biases, along with a clear discussion of the historian's own biases. Sadly, this latter is all too often lacking in some more popular (and even more sadly academic) histories.

Being "charitable toward one's subjects" can all too often become spinning available facts to fit a specific need or objective. Recent trends in historiography lean more toward a fair airing of all available sources, although I do wish that context played a greater role in such examinations. By that I mean linking a discussion with a wider context both of the times and the society in which the events took place. The US involvement in Vietnam is a prime example of this, although there are many others (and I suspect Iraq will pass Vietnam in short order with this sort of 'perfect vision history').

[Beelzebubalicious]

Mr. Benson, I was curious to read the original article, but the link you provided only went to your blog, in which you opine about "academic hostility to those who challenge liberal perceptions". The link in your blog does not go to the NY Sun Article. In fact, I couldn't find it in a search of the NY Sun web site. I finally found it after a google search.

The link is at: http://www.nysun.com/article/53422

It's worth reading the entire article as those who are accused of liberal bias have the opportunity to defend themselves.

[Ken White]

...
. . .

It's worth reading the entire article as those who are accused of liberal bias have the opportunity to defend themselves.

I read the article earlier and my recollection did not align with your statement; it seemed to me that those accused of 'liberal bias' had in fact corroborated that bias. I just reread the article from your link. My opinion was not changed.

One mans bias is another's fair and balanced, I suppose -- but the Jeffrey Record quote is telling, jest indeed. How professional, how Professorial...

Moyar has much of it right, some I disagree with. Record got little of it right and has done nothing and said little since that has proven correct. In my opinion, any 'strategist' who talks of winning and losing in a counterinsurgency effort has a significant credibility problem.

[tequila]

Mark Moyar's book is named "Triumph Forsaken". Does he then have a credibility problem?