Theory III
Week 1
9/02/22
Reading and preparation:
o Exam:06/04 18:15-20:15
o Lectures and PowerPoint (examination based on PowerPoints!)
o Daniel Wolf ‘a concise history of history’
o Articles
o Glossary
Exam: Concepts, their Interrelationships and examples
The goal
The goal to help to detect, analyse and critically evaluate the underlying assumptions of historical
research and writing. Not like historiography (survive) but we go below (so why is the historian
saying what he or she is saying) (So their underlying assumptions which are often hidden and
subconscious (implicit!)
History: the never ending discussion (- Peter Geijl)
The problems with history;
Peter Geijl – Dutch historian who wrote a book on Napoleon for and against. Discusses the
Napoleon’s historiography in exitance to see who was for and who was against napoleon.
His conclusion is that we can’t make up our minds, and that it is ‘a discussion without an
end’.
1. Historical arguments are often long and complex = both broad and deep (see
glossary!) (long: long narratives like stories, different from f.ex beta studies where
they are focussed on ‘proofs’. Moreover, stories are difficult to analyse because
stories from an ancient form of evolution were one of the first form of communication
in cultural evolution. Disadvantage, below these stories are assumptions about time,
space, human nature, ethics etc. Understanding stories means also looking beyond the
subphase of the ice berg understanding underlying assumptions.
2. Difficult to analyse because in form of stories (stories are bundles of questions and
answers, with many tacit premises). (predispositions below questions, answers and
stories)
, 3. Interpretations never necessarily follow from the evidence because there are no
universally valid premises. (Historians don’t have general laws by which we can
interpret the ‘evidence’) (They are many ways to interpret the evidence)
4. Interpretations are based on forms of reasoning that are not strict (no laws)
(confirmation of the consequence, denying the antecedents) and on 'essentially
contested concepts’. (fallacies according to logician point of view)
a. 'essentially contested concepts: 'inevitably involve endless disputes about
their proper uses on the part of their users'. (Google!) (Include topics such as
democracy, freedom etc)
5. Historical interpretations are inferences to the best explanation: the most plausible
hypothesis given the evidence determined by a comparison of the relative probability
of hypotheses.
6. History is a never ending discussion: concepts, assumptions in reasoning, significance
of the evidence can be challenged at any time. (might change in the light of new
evidence) (lack of interpretations, historical analysis takes in to account several
perspectives and point of views, so never true answer knowledge rather several
plausible answers and interpretations.) (one answer is the end of freedom)
Recap Glossary
Intellectual virtues 8 elements of thought.
Master these concepts to be able to reproduce and apply them in various context and
use them to improve the quality of your own historical thinking.
Intellectual virtues applied to the standard of thought (information needs to be);
clarity, relevant, accuracy, precise, logic of the argument has debt and broadness,
All starts from virtues, because you cherish those you start applying standards and
then to the elements. It all starts with ethics.
,Recap Theory II (:the history of history writing)
The four questions
1. What is history? (nature)
2. What is it about? (object)
3. How does it proceed (method)
4. What is it for?(aim)
Answers to all four questions differ in time outiliage mental. Meaning of concepts change
through time.
Questions- information- based on this info we try to answer the question. But below this
connection between interpretation and information is always an underlying assumption.
(From interpretation (answer) to question to underlying assumptions)
Underlying assumptions:
Between information and interpretations there is always an ‘assumption’
Time organized as:
Tyche (Greek) (fate)
Fortuna (Roman) (fate)
Divine Providence (Christians)
Human action
General laws
Idealism/realism
Makes a different how you act in life, one mode of thought which is history.
Underlying assumptions lead to different actions and thus different history making.
All mental ideas are constructs, deconstruct and construction of arguments. (reverse
engineering). Guidelines are under the questions (predispositions). Understanding biases and
assumptions when analysing sources.
History: science versus rhetoric?
Just studying the past. Passive observer of the past.
BUT! Rhetoric is involved in history, historians write for a bigger audience.
The limits of history as a science and how it overlaps with rhetoric. Where are limits of that
rhetoric? We hear history all the time, claims etc. Is it rhetoric or history. We talk here about
the limits of history as a science and when it overlaps with rhetoric.
, Science observers: Rhetoric participants :
Observers of the past. History should be Historians are not only observers but they
objective. Historians should not deal with are participating if only because they write
events younger that 50 years, contemporary for an audience.
history thus because there needs to be a
distance between the historian and the
subject to stay objective.
Human actions in the past Human actions in present Participation of
historians as the write about it, creating
writings based on the present day problems
and looking at the past. (studying not for the
sake of the past but to solve todays
problems)
(Kairos = moment of truth, moment of
writing your history. Writing about
liberalism during fascist regime. Historians
showing fascism not being the only way. So
writing about current history.)
Logic vs Fallacies (strictly logical and no Persuasiveness (convincing audiences)
fallacies.)
Truth! Convincing audience (propaganda? Fake
news? Vs. history)
Need for objectivity, to uncover the truth, ‘Historians’ are participants of debates, not
by creating distance between yourself and just observing but they try to convince
the past and topic. Scientific approach audiences. Aiming using history for human
(Ranke) action in the present. Speech act.
What are the limits to the historian’s use of rhetoric?
- You can only be persuasive if you follow the rules of the game.
Historical experience (history being ‘close’) vs. historical narratives.
Critics on historical narratives: Narratives always stay between the past and the present, but
the direct experience is true.
Historical Reasoning: 3 forms of inference (3 types of reasoning)
Deduction: Coins can be found in all Roman settlements→this is a Roman settlement, there
must be coins here. (from a general rule applied to a singular case) (scientist) (general to the
particular. ) (principle/general laws)
Week 1
9/02/22
Reading and preparation:
o Exam:06/04 18:15-20:15
o Lectures and PowerPoint (examination based on PowerPoints!)
o Daniel Wolf ‘a concise history of history’
o Articles
o Glossary
Exam: Concepts, their Interrelationships and examples
The goal
The goal to help to detect, analyse and critically evaluate the underlying assumptions of historical
research and writing. Not like historiography (survive) but we go below (so why is the historian
saying what he or she is saying) (So their underlying assumptions which are often hidden and
subconscious (implicit!)
History: the never ending discussion (- Peter Geijl)
The problems with history;
Peter Geijl – Dutch historian who wrote a book on Napoleon for and against. Discusses the
Napoleon’s historiography in exitance to see who was for and who was against napoleon.
His conclusion is that we can’t make up our minds, and that it is ‘a discussion without an
end’.
1. Historical arguments are often long and complex = both broad and deep (see
glossary!) (long: long narratives like stories, different from f.ex beta studies where
they are focussed on ‘proofs’. Moreover, stories are difficult to analyse because
stories from an ancient form of evolution were one of the first form of communication
in cultural evolution. Disadvantage, below these stories are assumptions about time,
space, human nature, ethics etc. Understanding stories means also looking beyond the
subphase of the ice berg understanding underlying assumptions.
2. Difficult to analyse because in form of stories (stories are bundles of questions and
answers, with many tacit premises). (predispositions below questions, answers and
stories)
, 3. Interpretations never necessarily follow from the evidence because there are no
universally valid premises. (Historians don’t have general laws by which we can
interpret the ‘evidence’) (They are many ways to interpret the evidence)
4. Interpretations are based on forms of reasoning that are not strict (no laws)
(confirmation of the consequence, denying the antecedents) and on 'essentially
contested concepts’. (fallacies according to logician point of view)
a. 'essentially contested concepts: 'inevitably involve endless disputes about
their proper uses on the part of their users'. (Google!) (Include topics such as
democracy, freedom etc)
5. Historical interpretations are inferences to the best explanation: the most plausible
hypothesis given the evidence determined by a comparison of the relative probability
of hypotheses.
6. History is a never ending discussion: concepts, assumptions in reasoning, significance
of the evidence can be challenged at any time. (might change in the light of new
evidence) (lack of interpretations, historical analysis takes in to account several
perspectives and point of views, so never true answer knowledge rather several
plausible answers and interpretations.) (one answer is the end of freedom)
Recap Glossary
Intellectual virtues 8 elements of thought.
Master these concepts to be able to reproduce and apply them in various context and
use them to improve the quality of your own historical thinking.
Intellectual virtues applied to the standard of thought (information needs to be);
clarity, relevant, accuracy, precise, logic of the argument has debt and broadness,
All starts from virtues, because you cherish those you start applying standards and
then to the elements. It all starts with ethics.
,Recap Theory II (:the history of history writing)
The four questions
1. What is history? (nature)
2. What is it about? (object)
3. How does it proceed (method)
4. What is it for?(aim)
Answers to all four questions differ in time outiliage mental. Meaning of concepts change
through time.
Questions- information- based on this info we try to answer the question. But below this
connection between interpretation and information is always an underlying assumption.
(From interpretation (answer) to question to underlying assumptions)
Underlying assumptions:
Between information and interpretations there is always an ‘assumption’
Time organized as:
Tyche (Greek) (fate)
Fortuna (Roman) (fate)
Divine Providence (Christians)
Human action
General laws
Idealism/realism
Makes a different how you act in life, one mode of thought which is history.
Underlying assumptions lead to different actions and thus different history making.
All mental ideas are constructs, deconstruct and construction of arguments. (reverse
engineering). Guidelines are under the questions (predispositions). Understanding biases and
assumptions when analysing sources.
History: science versus rhetoric?
Just studying the past. Passive observer of the past.
BUT! Rhetoric is involved in history, historians write for a bigger audience.
The limits of history as a science and how it overlaps with rhetoric. Where are limits of that
rhetoric? We hear history all the time, claims etc. Is it rhetoric or history. We talk here about
the limits of history as a science and when it overlaps with rhetoric.
, Science observers: Rhetoric participants :
Observers of the past. History should be Historians are not only observers but they
objective. Historians should not deal with are participating if only because they write
events younger that 50 years, contemporary for an audience.
history thus because there needs to be a
distance between the historian and the
subject to stay objective.
Human actions in the past Human actions in present Participation of
historians as the write about it, creating
writings based on the present day problems
and looking at the past. (studying not for the
sake of the past but to solve todays
problems)
(Kairos = moment of truth, moment of
writing your history. Writing about
liberalism during fascist regime. Historians
showing fascism not being the only way. So
writing about current history.)
Logic vs Fallacies (strictly logical and no Persuasiveness (convincing audiences)
fallacies.)
Truth! Convincing audience (propaganda? Fake
news? Vs. history)
Need for objectivity, to uncover the truth, ‘Historians’ are participants of debates, not
by creating distance between yourself and just observing but they try to convince
the past and topic. Scientific approach audiences. Aiming using history for human
(Ranke) action in the present. Speech act.
What are the limits to the historian’s use of rhetoric?
- You can only be persuasive if you follow the rules of the game.
Historical experience (history being ‘close’) vs. historical narratives.
Critics on historical narratives: Narratives always stay between the past and the present, but
the direct experience is true.
Historical Reasoning: 3 forms of inference (3 types of reasoning)
Deduction: Coins can be found in all Roman settlements→this is a Roman settlement, there
must be coins here. (from a general rule applied to a singular case) (scientist) (general to the
particular. ) (principle/general laws)
