Can we say anything with certainty (for sure) in history?
Post with the most interesting/compelling/insightful part of your response that you formed in class. Please comment/constructively critique another response as well.
Nothing can be said for certain. Some people think that dates and times of events are certain, but in reality, how can we be sure of the truthfulness of anything? In an episode of the cosmos I once watched, there was a theory presented that said that our universe actually exists on the surface of a black hole. The theory about black holes is that on the surface of one, there is a copy stored of everything that has ever entered the black hole. So by this theory, our universe is just a copy of something else, and we are living events that have already been lived. On the flip side of this theory is the argument that maybe we aren't living anything real at all. People have been questioning the purpose of life and existence for many centuries. How do we know what we experience is actually real? How do we even prove our actual existence? We will never get answers to questions like these. In the meantime, we must put faith in our memories and experiences, because they are all we have. Though nothing is certain, there is a high probability in the likeliness of many things.
This is in reference to the part of my essay that questions the legitimacy of primary sources:
"History relies on those who lived through it. When historians find a document written by a serf from the middle-ages, they expect that serf to tell the truth about his or her life. However, this may not always be the case."
This shows that every historical record cannot always/compulsorily be considered fact. It requires further analysis before it can be considered a viable source of knowledge.
Uncertainty can prove advantageous in history, as it allows sources to be interpreted in many ways, providing a greater amount of practical applications from the source in question, accomplishing one of the goals in history. In fact, uncertainty can make history more certain, as the many interpretations, when pulled together, provides an interpretation closer to certain than one without any uncertainty. We have to be uncertain because doubt is what makes mankind question, giving ample room for improvement. In a way, it is a logarithmic growth of certainty, infinitely becoming certain but never being fully certain. Becoming more certain is impractical mathematically and reasonably; it is meaningless to distinguish between 99.99% and 100%. At the same time that we must have uncertainty, we also need certainty in order to function and make use of history. If we do not trust information, we can and will not use it. The certainty gap here must be bridged by faith, having faith in one's sources and other interpretations. While doubt brings the certainty as close as possible, faith must "charge" the information so that it might be practically applied to present life
No matter how hard we try, nothing can be certain. Bias and interpretations can impact how history can be written or read. Bias can come from many different sources and can come in many different forms. Wording bias can be found when a person is being interviewed. When a writer from a Democratic news service has to write about the candidates in an upcoming election, that writer may promote the Democratic candidate and/or may try to put down the Republican candidate. This may impact how people view history. People may interpret important sources from events in history differently than how the author or creator may have originally meant the work to come across. One way to try to make history more accurate is when you take accounts of one event in history from many different sources and if there are any similarities between these sources, then those similarities are more likely to have actually happen than not. Some sources, if they were written in a different language than what the person who is actually studying speaks, may be read incorrectly and some words or events may have literally been lost in translation. There are high probabilities that events have occurred in history, but nothing is certain.
have you* ever done a very large amount of math homework, and felt very content upon completion, only to recognize a little later on that a minor error had carried through the entire process? I am pretty sure that this has happened to you, this has happened to everyone.
Have you found that after discovering this error, even though the math would be fairly simple to re-do, you just really don't want to go back and improve upon the homework? (for lack of motivation, patience, etc.)
I think that this complex plays in to history directly, making it incredibly hard to pin much credibility to history books at all. Now, of course, I could go with the familiar "history is written by people and people are biased by nature" argument, but i decide to stray from the path a bit. think. If you went through all that work to complete your math work, and are unwilling to shift it when you find it to be wrong, are historians not faced with the same issue (to a certain degree)? Historians have worked tirelessly and researched ridiculously in order to piece together this semi-coherent (AP world curriculum may debate) timeline of human existence. What if they come across this little flaw in the system that would have shifted it all. Inclined to undermine all that hard work? not likely.
Now- I don't mean to accuse all (or even most (or even some)) of historians of being irresponsible and unreliable, but simply to bring up this idea, and it's context in history. not a ridiculous thought?
*I feel like i am breaking some kind of TOK rule by addressing the reader exactly, or maybe not, but i am almost positive that i say/do/write some non-TOK things here. so.
Nothing can really be certain because unless you were physically there when the event was taking place all of your knowlege about what happened comes from a variety of different sources. If primary sources have a skewed interpretation of what actually happened then that false information would get published by secondary sources. That information would get published by secondary sources and that information would fill our textbooks and whatever else we are using to learn history. Although the chances of all of that happening is highly unlikely, it’s not impossible. We are always revising and altering history. Until we find out exactly everything that can be found our knowledge of the issue isn’t completely accurate. Nothing in life is completely known for sure. In everything there is a certain amount of faith that has to be established before you label something as completely valid.
Nothing can be said for certain. Some people think that dates and times of events are certain, but in reality, how can we be sure of the truthfulness of anything? In an episode of the cosmos I once watched, there was a theory presented that said that our universe actually exists on the surface of a black hole. The theory about black holes is that on the surface of one, there is a copy stored of everything that has ever entered the black hole. So by this theory, our universe is just a copy of something else, and we are living events that have already been lived. On the flip side of this theory is the argument that maybe we aren't living anything real at all. People have been questioning the purpose of life and existence for many centuries. How do we know what we experience is actually real? How do we even prove our actual existence? We will never get answers to questions like these. In the meantime, we must put faith in our memories and experiences, because they are all we have. Though nothing is certain, there is a high probability in the likeliness of many things.
ReplyDeleteThis is in reference to the part of my essay that questions the legitimacy of primary sources:
ReplyDelete"History relies on those who lived through it. When historians find a document written by a serf from the middle-ages, they expect that serf to tell the truth about his or her life. However, this may not always be the case."
This shows that every historical record cannot always/compulsorily be considered fact. It requires further analysis before it can be considered a viable source of knowledge.
Uncertainty can prove advantageous in history, as it allows sources to be interpreted in many ways, providing a greater amount of practical applications from the source in question, accomplishing one of the goals in history. In fact, uncertainty can make history more certain, as the many interpretations, when pulled together, provides an interpretation closer to certain than one without any uncertainty. We have to be uncertain because doubt is what makes mankind question, giving ample room for improvement. In a way, it is a logarithmic growth of certainty, infinitely becoming certain but never being fully certain. Becoming more certain is impractical mathematically and reasonably; it is meaningless to distinguish between 99.99% and 100%. At the same time that we must have uncertainty, we also need certainty in order to function and make use of history. If we do not trust information, we can and will not use it. The certainty gap here must be bridged by faith, having faith in one's sources and other interpretations. While doubt brings the certainty as close as possible, faith must "charge" the information so that it might be practically applied to present life
ReplyDeleteNo matter how hard we try, nothing can be certain. Bias and interpretations can impact how history can be written or read. Bias can come from many different sources and can come in many different forms. Wording bias can be found when a person is being interviewed. When a writer from a Democratic news service has to write about the candidates in an upcoming election, that writer may promote the Democratic candidate and/or may try to put down the Republican candidate. This may impact how people view history. People may interpret important sources from events in history differently than how the author or creator may have originally meant the work to come across. One way to try to make history more accurate is when you take accounts of one event in history from many different sources and if there are any similarities between these sources, then those similarities are more likely to have actually happen than not. Some sources, if they were written in a different language than what the person who is actually studying speaks, may be read incorrectly and some words or events may have literally been lost in translation. There are high probabilities that events have occurred in history, but nothing is certain.
ReplyDeleteso. hear me out.
ReplyDeletehave you* ever done a very large amount of math homework, and felt very content upon completion, only to recognize a little later on that a minor error had carried through the entire process? I am pretty sure that this has happened to you, this has happened to everyone.
Have you found that after discovering this error, even though the math would be fairly simple to re-do, you just really don't want to go back and improve upon the homework? (for lack of motivation, patience, etc.)
I think that this complex plays in to history directly, making it incredibly hard to pin much credibility to history books at all. Now, of course, I could go with the familiar "history is written by people and people are biased by nature" argument, but i decide to stray from the path a bit. think. If you went through all that work to complete your math work, and are unwilling to shift it when you find it to be wrong, are historians not faced with the same issue (to a certain degree)? Historians have worked tirelessly and researched ridiculously in order to piece together this semi-coherent (AP world curriculum may debate) timeline of human existence. What if they come across this little flaw in the system that would have shifted it all. Inclined to undermine all that hard work? not likely.
Now- I don't mean to accuse all (or even most (or even some)) of historians of being irresponsible and unreliable, but simply to bring up this idea, and it's context in history. not a ridiculous thought?
*I feel like i am breaking some kind of TOK rule by addressing the reader exactly, or maybe not, but i am almost positive that i say/do/write some non-TOK things here. so.
Nothing can really be certain because unless you were physically there when the event was taking place all of your knowlege about what happened comes from a variety of different sources. If primary sources have a skewed interpretation of what actually happened then that false information would get published by secondary sources. That information would get published by secondary sources and that information would fill our textbooks and whatever else we are using to learn history. Although the chances of all of that happening is highly unlikely, it’s not impossible. We are always revising and altering history. Until we find out exactly everything that can be found our knowledge of the issue isn’t completely accurate. Nothing in life is completely known for sure. In everything there is a certain amount of faith that has to be established before you label something as completely valid.
ReplyDelete