How can we know that history is true? Collingwood and Jerome warn us about the conflicts and challenges that arise when attempting to use evidence to reconstruct the past. In Collingwood's Who killed John Doe? We are warned against the cut and paste method of reconstructing the past through history. Rather than simply cutting and pasting the facts that are presented to us into our own version of history, Collingwood advocates that we follow Francis Bacon's example and study them scientifically. At the same time Jerome warns us against merely believing and trusting the reports of eye witnesses and other forms of testimony as being completely accurate. With these two concerns in mind how might we best go about discerning what history really is, and how we can accurately reconstruct it?
Through the illustration of his story of John Doe's murder, Collingwood suggests that we should approach the recreation of history scientifically. Rather than just reporting the evidence that we can determine as true and leaving out that which we deem false, we should analyze it more carefully. This means that we should not just look at the obvious truth but rather also dig into the untruth as Collingwood says "twisting a passage ostensibly about something quite different into the answer to the question he has decided to ask". For instance in a chemistry experiment, instead of throwing out the data because it obviously cannot be true, such as in the case of the maid confessing to the murder, one must dig deeper and ask why were my results wrong? Why did the girl confess to the murder? Obviously she could not have done it herself. In the example of the chemistry experiment perhaps something was added that wasn't intended which threw off the results. Or in the case of John Doe's murder, it was the girl's feeling towards her boy friend that caused her to confess, thus bringing your suspicions to the boy friend.
This information deduced by the historical detective can then be used as a diving board from which the historian can begin to research other areas from which to prove his new hypothesis. This occurred in the story of the John Doe murder investigation when the police were then able to search the water heater furnace for evidence of the buttons that came from the burned gloves which were covered in paint. This research of a revised hypothesis confirmed the idea that the girl's boy friend, though not the actual murderer, was indeed slightly connected.
The Case of the Eyewitnesses by Thomas Jerome starts out with the question: What kinds of people make the best witnesses? He then gives several scientific studies done by prominent people such as Alfred Binet, the father of the standardized test. These studies point out that in even a short time after having witnessed an event, most people are unable to accurately recall important details of the event. They often even create false details that they are convinced actually took place. Jerome suggested that these studies then cause us to doubt other witnesses such as ancient historian Pliny the Younger whose reports of the eruptions of Mt. Vesuvius were over ten years old. Another concern brought up by Jerome is that of language. Poor translation or misunderstanding of the cultural context of the evidence both by us and by those who passed it on to us can also skew how we attempt to recreate history. As a result the evidence as we see and interpret, it may no longer be accurate. An example of such might be the use of the word tyranny. The negative connotation of that word today is much different to the original meaning of the word as used by the Greeks.
Going back to the beginning
statement, how then can we know that history is true? I think that by using
Collingwood's scientific approach, we can reconstruct a better picture using
the knowledge we already know. Relying on this knowledge makes the problem of
the constant quest of cut and paste historians for more information, less
critical. We should also be able to use
that approach to work with Jerome's concern about eyewitnesses. Collingwood's scientific approach can be used
to analyze the testimonies of the eyewitnesses We can still learn from what witnesses
say even if what we take from it their testimonies is not literally "cut
and paste" from what they actually said or wrote. This method could also help
us in overcoming language and cultural barriers by comparing and contrasting
different pieces of evidences scientifically in an attempt to fit
together pieces of a puzzle.
Collingwood's and Jerome's concerns are definitely valid and need to be
considered in the process of recreating and recording history. Collingwood's advocation of Bacon's scientific
approach to studying history, while not the perfect solution, is a good tool
for dealing with many of these concerns and minimalizing their effects in the
process of recreating history.
Recent Comments