I have recently fallen in love with the author Dan Brown and his work. In one of his books, he points out that there is really no way to prove that what we are taught history is acctually what happened in the past. All books have a personal view, even the bible was edited to hold only content that the Church deemed worthy.
So if I may, I am going to pose another excruciatingly painful question. If everything that we think we know is a lie, how can one prove that history has acctually happened? Is it even possible? Can a singular person show the rest of the world the acctual record of events that is mostly unbiased? If so, how would one go about such a task? It would most certainly take a lifetime, and by then more will have changed that he (or she) can not put into writing, therefore starting the viscious cycle of lies in history again.
I will end with a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte: "What is history but a lie agreed upon?"
As a history major I can say that one can prove history, however, there will always be doubt because we are human. That's natural and a good thing as it pushes study forward.
I still have two objections to this topic - objection that should be met if this thread is going to continue.
1) What on earth are we talking about? "History" (as I said before) is not something that is subject to being proven. It's like trying to prove "Science." Neither subject in general has specific claims (although perhaps some reasonable assumptions), and both have conflicting ideas about certain events, peoples, timelines, etc. Not even specific disciplines can be proven within a particular field. I can't prove "hysics" or "the french revolution." Each of these huge disciplines contains certain claims, though. Each has certain theories. So is that the question: Can these specific theories be proven?
2) If that interpretation is what we're talking about, then it seems like a trivial question. A theory in history is subject to standards of verification, just like any other discipline. The problem is that history is usually a story - something that explains what and when, but also tries to explain why. And this is something that is not verifiable in a standard sense.
At the end of the day, we have differing stories about a lot of things. How did Alexander the Great die? Was Jesus a real person? How did the Egyptians manage to construct these massive pyramids? Typically, you can have a range of different theories, but particular pieces of evidence could go toward making one theory far less plausible than another. I guess what we would need is enough evidence to rule out theories A, B, C, and D while not having any evidence that rules out theory E. But even if we had substantial evidence for theory E, we would also need a universal statement about the theories within that set. We would need some statement that said of the theories we have, that they exhaust every single plausible theory. And that seems like it's something much harder to come across.
And with that, we're back at a basic problem for any theory in any discipline. At what point do we consider a theory to be proven?
* Just realized after writing this that I used theory in a philosophical sense, rather than a scientific one. But I'm sure those in the hard sciences will be just as happy substituting "hypothesis" for every occurrence of "theory" above.
I like your post And that's what historians struggle with. Nothing can be 100% proven. It's just impossible. We don't have ALL the needed documents, but we can propose what we think happened based off of competent research. It can be as proven as it can be (if that makes sense). Beyond that we have to accept the historians' work with either faith or doubt. It's how we've moved from a mythic perspective in historiography (Herodotus for example) to a human centered perspective
hmmmmmm, very good points but isnt the definition of history written/recorded/proven bits of time in which we can verify in one way(diary) or another(fossils).... none the less history is indeed something we can only prove to an extent, many variables come into play so this topic would need to be a little more specific...i.e. yesterday, a century ago, a milenia ago, even further..
"Tomorrow is a mystery, yesterday ishistory, but today is a gift, thats why its called.. the PRESENT"_ dont know where it originated butttt i got it from that turtle on Kung Fu panda lol i love that turtle.
I read that Lief Erikson and Christopher Columbus both founded America first.
Not counting the First Nations, Lief Erikson was (probably)the first person to actually explore the Americas. And it is hard to prove history. As far as I'm concerned everything I experienced up to the writing of this comment has been a false memory, along with everything I have learned.
I'll be a bit more philosophical. What if you are living in a dream? All the people around you, the reactions, knowledge, everything you think is reality, is created by your own mind. Imagine your created yourself a world, and you are the only real thing living in it. Everyone around you is a figment of your imagination. How do you know you you're living in reality? It is all relative. If everything in the universe was increased 1000 times, nobody would notice. How would you notice if the people around you exist?
Now, I'm going to answer the OP. Let's say you were born 15 years ago? How do you know that there even existed life before you? Faith. I'm not talking about religious faith, I'm talking about trusting the concepts, such as history, people, and knowledge. You have no idea. Truth is, as smart as anyone can be, they do not know all. For there are a million questions to be asked, but not a million answers to respond.
I'm not saying everything you know is a lie, but how do you know it is true?
I'm not saying everything you know is a lie, but how do you know it is true?
You make a good point, but I think it may be much stronger than what is needed to call historical facts into question. Sure, we could be in a skeptical scenario, but that's a threat to every piece of knowledge we have - not just historical facts. In fact, historians don't really have to address worries like these. Most disciplines within fields like history and science simply assume that the world is the way it appears to us and that certain methods of belief formation are justified (like ancient texts corroborated by archaeological evidence). So, while these are certainly worries to be had, I don't think they're salient to historians.
So the question becomes: Given what the historian is (justifiably) assuming, is her position still threatened by any salient worries that are either a) specific to history, or b) specific to her thesis?
Uhm...no it's not. It's something British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said.
You can't prove history itself because it's the entirety of the past, however you can prove individual events that happened in the course of history by using written and visual evidence.
As for the Vikings and Columbus dilemma, it's either theorized or a proven fact* that Viking sailors landed on north Canadian shores around 1100 C.
*It's been a while since I talked to my History teacher about it, so I'll have to double check whether or not it's fact, or theory.
Uhm.. thats call of duty Modern Warfare 2.. Not so deep now.. huh?
That quote is from Winston Churchill.
Moegreche, I'm talking about something deeper than that. You can only think for yourself. As far as you know, you are the only person you know exists. How do you know I am not a person who doesn't exist at all? I am a figment of your imagination giving speaking to you. The same goes for me. How do I know you exist? How do I know I am speaking to a person?
What we perceive to be the truth may not be the truth. You may accept the knowledge that your own mind is revealing to you, implying that you already know the information but are just remembering it by creating a world in which you learn these things again. All of the information may not be true, but since you are in this world -you're mind- you have no choice other than to accept it. Even though your mind is revealing to you information that is not true, you have to accept it. It is also showing information that you do not agree upon, but in one sense, it is allowing you to perceive information that you still do not agree with.
As realistic as your "dream" may be, it could all just unreal. As hard as it seems to understand, the things you see, think, feel, taste, it could all be just what your mind perceives.
You have no idea what is true, and have no way of finding out. The only thing I think is true are certain sciences and all of mathematics. History is just a story which you believe to be true. There could be all the evidence in the world to say Hannibal and the Carpathians did have a bloody campaign through the Empire of Rome, but there are meaningless facts.
Moegreche, I'm talking about something deeper than that.
Yeah, I realize that. My point was that those who argue for certain historical hypothesis need not defend her claim against radical skepticism. There are plenty of flaws with how historical information is obtained and the reliability of these sources without bringing in radical skepticism. Just trying to focus the conversation here. Radical skepticism like you're talking about would apply to virtually any contingent claim about the world - not just historical ones.
you guys ever taught this: His-story=history. it was his' story. THAT is where the word "history" came from. I think. Anyway I think most of our history is near the truth, of course it is not the EXACT copy and at times COMPLETELY different but I think on the whole our History is close to the truth.
History can, to varying degrees, indeed be proven. Historians use what is called the historical method to determine what evidence is acceptable and use acceptable evidence to form lines of proof for particular events. We must remember, though, that nothing in this world is ever 100% proven and as such our scientific usage of the word 'roven' varies slightly from the colloquial usage.
