Lecture 1: Critical Thinking and Theory
Rik Peters, Readings: Ginzburg, Newall, Glossary
This lecture
About the underlying assumptions of historical thinking. To raise your own questions as a
historian, you have to understand the questions of other historians, i.e. reflect in a critical way on
the ‘problem field’, i.e. to detect, analyse, critically evaluate the strength of historical research and
writing.
Reverse engineering = deconstruction (hermeneutic approach)
Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation. The hermeneutic
perspective studies historical texts, in which the historian bases truth-claims on the way he
interprets sources and expresses his interpretation to the public. The hermeneutic (narrative)
historian wants to be read and to convince his readers with the reality of his representation.
Eight elements of thought
1. Implication
2. Question
3. Purpose
4. Information
5. Point of view
6. Assumption
7. Concept
8. Interpretation
The eight elements of thought can be found in all writing; all elements are related to each other.
Underlying assumptions are considered to be self-evident; how do they change?
How does historical thought develop over time?
People, in view of changing realities, start questioning their assumptions, which implies that
people can objectify their own thoughts, which means that, somehow, they can reflect on their
past selves.
→ get to grips with the underlying assumptions of a paradigm so that you can develop your point
of view, purpose and questions.
Fallacy of negative proof (Newall)
Detecting assumptions and questioning them.
The function of theory in practice: helping historians to detect, analyze and critically evaluate the
underlying assumptions of historical research and writing → focus on assumptions and concepts
1
,Ginzburg’s method = abduction
- Starting from little information and then reconstructing a past reality, sign/indication →
clues
- Abduction from information; the surprising information x has been observed; if hypothesis
H were true, x would follow; so: probably H is true (hypothesis)
Giovanni Morelli (1816-1891)
Giovanni Morelli is an Italian art critic. As an art historian, he developed the ‘Morellian’ technique
of scholarship, identifying the characteristic techniques of painting hands by different authors, to
distinguish a fake from an original painting (“the devil is in the detail”)
There are three forms of inference:
1. Abduction: reasons from a particular fact to an hypothesis
2. Induction: reasons from particular facts to a general rule
3. Deduction: reasons from a general rule to a particular fact
Note: induction is a quantitative jump from part to whole, abduction is a qualitative jump from
particular fact to a hypothesis which explains it in general terms.
Where do historians get their hypotheses from? → Induction
Inferences to the best explanation → explaining historical events by asking smarter questions,
based on more plausible theories
Argumentation: standpoint + arguments + assumptions
Standpoint/proposition: a linguistic expression by which a speaker or writer gives his/her opinion
about something (→indicators: I find, feel, think, in my opinion, evident that)
(synonyms: contention, claim, conclusion, inference, interpretation, thesis, answer, solution)
Argument: a linguistic expression by which a speaker or writer defends his/her standpoint
against criticism (→indicators: because, since, for, thus)
(synonyms: reason, defence, motivation)
Assumption: a statement accepted or supposed as true without proof or demonstration; an
unstated premise or belief (→indicators: we presume, the starting point is, we begin from; but
mostly there are no indicators for assumptions)
Prosecutor’s fallacy:
A fallacy of statistical reasoning, typically used by the prosecution to argue for the guilt of a
defendant during a criminal trial. Although it is named after prosecutors, it is not specific to them,
and some variants of the fallacy can be used by defense lawyers arguing for the innocence of
their client. The following demonstrates the fallacy in the context of a prosecutor questioning an
2
,expert witness: “the odds of finding this evidence on an innocent man are so small that the jury
can safely disregard the possibility that this defendant is innocent”.
- Fallacy/faulty reasoning: it is highly improbable to find information x
- Mistake: the argument does not take alternative hypotheses for the presence of x into
account
- Solution: ‘invent’ alternative hypotheses for x and compare them
- By comparing hypotheses, you can ‘weigh’ the relative ‘force’ of the evidence
- And also: distinguish between ‘lovely’ (what people like to believe) and ‘likely’
(logical/probable) hypotheses.
Fallacies
- Old definition: invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or ‘wrong moves’ in the construction
of an argument.
- New definition: (van Eemeren) fallacies are incorrect moves in a discussion for which the
goal is the successful resolution of a dispute
Newall lists 15 major fallacies:
1. Recognize them
2. Show why they are fallacious in terms of Van Eemeren
3. Tackle them
3
, Lecture 2: Laws and Intentions
Rik Peters, Readings: Popkin H5, Hempel, Collingwood, Makkreel, Pleasants
This lecture
- Cause vs. actions, laws vs. intentions, explanation vs. understanding
- Browning vs. Goldhagen
- Structure and agency
- Underlying philosophical assumptions
- Insights vs. blind spots in each of the keys
Law, intention, motive
- These are terms used in everyday life; everyday we make causal connections, understand
motives and quarrel about them
- Function: connect events in time, attribution of a cause or motive
- Historians borrow from these ordinary schemes, but may improve on them, by the use of
theories, or intricate situational analysis
Law: (1) rule of conduct (2) regularity in the material world (3) principle deduced from observation
(4) law of nature
Intention: (1) the purpose of an action (2) one’s aim or design
Motive: (1) an inward or spiritual prompting or impulse (2) a factor or circumstance inducing a
person to act in a certain way
Structure and agency
- “The central problem in social and political theory” (Pleasants)
- Social structural causation vs. free will
- Current theories avoid extremes: Anthony Giddens (1938-), Roy Bhaskar (1944-2014)
(arguing that structure and agency overlap)
Naturalism (positivism) vs. voluntarism (libertarianism/post-positivism/hermeneutic)
Naturalism (positivism) is the metaphysical assumption that the universe contains no non-natural
or supernatural entities, substances, powers, forces or events. Thus human beings are creatures
made up solely of physical, chemical and biological materials and processes. Human actions are,
therefore, natural events, occurring in space and time. The implication of this, is that human
events are natural events and determined by causes; explainable in terms of causes. Blind spot:
what about free will, what about responsibility (agency)?
Voluntarism believes in free will and that events are caused by human actions; assuming that
action is intentional. Blind spot: what about causes or ‘circumstances’ (structure)?
4
Rik Peters, Readings: Ginzburg, Newall, Glossary
This lecture
About the underlying assumptions of historical thinking. To raise your own questions as a
historian, you have to understand the questions of other historians, i.e. reflect in a critical way on
the ‘problem field’, i.e. to detect, analyse, critically evaluate the strength of historical research and
writing.
Reverse engineering = deconstruction (hermeneutic approach)
Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation. The hermeneutic
perspective studies historical texts, in which the historian bases truth-claims on the way he
interprets sources and expresses his interpretation to the public. The hermeneutic (narrative)
historian wants to be read and to convince his readers with the reality of his representation.
Eight elements of thought
1. Implication
2. Question
3. Purpose
4. Information
5. Point of view
6. Assumption
7. Concept
8. Interpretation
The eight elements of thought can be found in all writing; all elements are related to each other.
Underlying assumptions are considered to be self-evident; how do they change?
How does historical thought develop over time?
People, in view of changing realities, start questioning their assumptions, which implies that
people can objectify their own thoughts, which means that, somehow, they can reflect on their
past selves.
→ get to grips with the underlying assumptions of a paradigm so that you can develop your point
of view, purpose and questions.
Fallacy of negative proof (Newall)
Detecting assumptions and questioning them.
The function of theory in practice: helping historians to detect, analyze and critically evaluate the
underlying assumptions of historical research and writing → focus on assumptions and concepts
1
,Ginzburg’s method = abduction
- Starting from little information and then reconstructing a past reality, sign/indication →
clues
- Abduction from information; the surprising information x has been observed; if hypothesis
H were true, x would follow; so: probably H is true (hypothesis)
Giovanni Morelli (1816-1891)
Giovanni Morelli is an Italian art critic. As an art historian, he developed the ‘Morellian’ technique
of scholarship, identifying the characteristic techniques of painting hands by different authors, to
distinguish a fake from an original painting (“the devil is in the detail”)
There are three forms of inference:
1. Abduction: reasons from a particular fact to an hypothesis
2. Induction: reasons from particular facts to a general rule
3. Deduction: reasons from a general rule to a particular fact
Note: induction is a quantitative jump from part to whole, abduction is a qualitative jump from
particular fact to a hypothesis which explains it in general terms.
Where do historians get their hypotheses from? → Induction
Inferences to the best explanation → explaining historical events by asking smarter questions,
based on more plausible theories
Argumentation: standpoint + arguments + assumptions
Standpoint/proposition: a linguistic expression by which a speaker or writer gives his/her opinion
about something (→indicators: I find, feel, think, in my opinion, evident that)
(synonyms: contention, claim, conclusion, inference, interpretation, thesis, answer, solution)
Argument: a linguistic expression by which a speaker or writer defends his/her standpoint
against criticism (→indicators: because, since, for, thus)
(synonyms: reason, defence, motivation)
Assumption: a statement accepted or supposed as true without proof or demonstration; an
unstated premise or belief (→indicators: we presume, the starting point is, we begin from; but
mostly there are no indicators for assumptions)
Prosecutor’s fallacy:
A fallacy of statistical reasoning, typically used by the prosecution to argue for the guilt of a
defendant during a criminal trial. Although it is named after prosecutors, it is not specific to them,
and some variants of the fallacy can be used by defense lawyers arguing for the innocence of
their client. The following demonstrates the fallacy in the context of a prosecutor questioning an
2
,expert witness: “the odds of finding this evidence on an innocent man are so small that the jury
can safely disregard the possibility that this defendant is innocent”.
- Fallacy/faulty reasoning: it is highly improbable to find information x
- Mistake: the argument does not take alternative hypotheses for the presence of x into
account
- Solution: ‘invent’ alternative hypotheses for x and compare them
- By comparing hypotheses, you can ‘weigh’ the relative ‘force’ of the evidence
- And also: distinguish between ‘lovely’ (what people like to believe) and ‘likely’
(logical/probable) hypotheses.
Fallacies
- Old definition: invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or ‘wrong moves’ in the construction
of an argument.
- New definition: (van Eemeren) fallacies are incorrect moves in a discussion for which the
goal is the successful resolution of a dispute
Newall lists 15 major fallacies:
1. Recognize them
2. Show why they are fallacious in terms of Van Eemeren
3. Tackle them
3
, Lecture 2: Laws and Intentions
Rik Peters, Readings: Popkin H5, Hempel, Collingwood, Makkreel, Pleasants
This lecture
- Cause vs. actions, laws vs. intentions, explanation vs. understanding
- Browning vs. Goldhagen
- Structure and agency
- Underlying philosophical assumptions
- Insights vs. blind spots in each of the keys
Law, intention, motive
- These are terms used in everyday life; everyday we make causal connections, understand
motives and quarrel about them
- Function: connect events in time, attribution of a cause or motive
- Historians borrow from these ordinary schemes, but may improve on them, by the use of
theories, or intricate situational analysis
Law: (1) rule of conduct (2) regularity in the material world (3) principle deduced from observation
(4) law of nature
Intention: (1) the purpose of an action (2) one’s aim or design
Motive: (1) an inward or spiritual prompting or impulse (2) a factor or circumstance inducing a
person to act in a certain way
Structure and agency
- “The central problem in social and political theory” (Pleasants)
- Social structural causation vs. free will
- Current theories avoid extremes: Anthony Giddens (1938-), Roy Bhaskar (1944-2014)
(arguing that structure and agency overlap)
Naturalism (positivism) vs. voluntarism (libertarianism/post-positivism/hermeneutic)
Naturalism (positivism) is the metaphysical assumption that the universe contains no non-natural
or supernatural entities, substances, powers, forces or events. Thus human beings are creatures
made up solely of physical, chemical and biological materials and processes. Human actions are,
therefore, natural events, occurring in space and time. The implication of this, is that human
events are natural events and determined by causes; explainable in terms of causes. Blind spot:
what about free will, what about responsibility (agency)?
Voluntarism believes in free will and that events are caused by human actions; assuming that
action is intentional. Blind spot: what about causes or ‘circumstances’ (structure)?
4
