Given that this is a History Forum and there are quite a few historians and history majors who frequent it, I'm surprised there has not been more of a discussion on this. We often put down articles and opinions as being 'bad history' or formed from 'bad history'. So I'd like to hear from the historians and history majors as to what makes good, credible history. And please, let's not forget oral history whilst doing it.

Well, it's a fair cop!:goodjob:

We don't discuss what history is or how it works... much.:blush:

It's actually a very hard subject to tackle.

On my mind I get the old story of a bunch of blindfoled scientists charged with the task of describing an elephant, each one getting hold of a different piece of the animal and coming up with his own ridiculous version.

I.e. we can do this, but it will entail quite a lot of groping and fondling, and it might even get messy.;)

Hey, when I write it, it doesn't seem too bad actually!:D

"Bad history" usually starts with an aim, or purpose. Facts are then selectively chosen in order to fit those aims, with things that don't fit the aim being discarded or denigrated.

"Bad history" usually starts with an aim, or purpose. Facts are then selectively chosen in order to fit those aims, with things that don't fit the aim being discarded or denigrated.
With the further complication added that not being aware of oneself having an aim or a purpose doesn't excuse an historian.

Which brings up the tricky problem of the question if there exists any history at all, where selection and interpretation of facts isn't done with a preconcieved, albeit unconscius, aim?
Maybe one so generally accepted in its time and place it's like water to a fish; everywhere yet not noticed as it is the medium in which we exist.

We may be entering the Twilight Zone of Historiography, the "History of History".:scan:

OK OK. It's pretty easy to say what Bad History is. Although it is worth pointing out for people's information. But what of the methodology that goes into making good, solid, credible history?

I'd love to offer my own views but I am simply not as well qualified as others here are.

Given that this is a History Forum and there are quite a few historians and history majors who frequent it, I'm surprised there has not been more of a discussion on this. We often put down articles and opinions as being 'bad history' or formed from 'bad history'. So I'd like to hear from the historians and history majors as to what makes good, credible history. And please, let's not forget oral history whilst doing it.

I have a bachelor's in Classics. What I find makes bad history is when legends, fables, and rumors are taken as fact. What makes good history is when it is presented in a plausible, critical and evidence-based manner. Examples of bad history include just about anything that is extracted uncritically from the Bible, Iliad, or other mythic text.

What makes good history is when it is presented in a plausible, critical and evidence-based manner.Now we're getting some blood out of the stone. Thanks.

I don't have any History qualifications beyond A Level, but I think that good history involves -

* The willingness to look at all the relevant sources, which means the ability to assess which ones are relevant. That also means avoiding common pitfalls like the erroneous assumption that earlier sources must be better than later ones.

* The ability to evaluate how biased a source is, and why.

* The ability to use a source given its bias. That is, not simply saying "This source was a witness, so it can't be biased, so I will treat it as Gospel truth," and also not saying "This source was written to glorify its subject, so nothing in it can possibly be true." A good historian will know that even the best apparent source may not be completely true, whilst even the most biased source may have plenty of truth to it.

Those are skills you need to get at the truth of what happened. But of course there's more to history than that. You also need to be able to understand and explain why things happened. So for that you need -

* The ability to understand the worldview of the people and times you're talking about. That means not just interpreting them as if they were modern or from your culture. For example, it's a mistake to assume that if a medieval Pope condemned a certain heretic he did so purely for political reasons. Perhaps he genuinely believed there was a spiritual danger to be removed.

* The ability to recognise that people do not necessarily give the real reasons for their actions - indeed, they may conceal their true reasons from themselves. There's also the difference between motive and justification, as we have seen with the Iraq war.

And I suppose that even if you are good at getting at what happened and why, you still need more skills to be a good writer of history. So for that you need -

* The ability to write clearly, expressing what you mean to say concisely and in a logical way.

* The ability to engage your audience and make them understand why this period is interesting and why they should care about it. That doesn't just mean that ghastly shibboleth of modernity, relevance, but getting people to see that the period or the figures from it can be interesting and engaging in their own right, irrespective of what difference they make to people now.

I think the author who has done all this the best - of the limited number that I have read - is John Julius Norwich with his Byzantium trilogy. I haven't read his other works so I don't know if he kept up the standard!

An excellent post there Plotinus. Thank you very much.

It's a fact that all the "Historical filth" articles are Bad History. However I work on the theory that if I throw enough knob gags in nobody will notice. David Irving should take note.

:lol: Knob gags, always loved that phrase. Oh and you didn't need to point out 'the filth' was not 'good history'. I always read them as comic sketches which drew on historical sources. Driven by comedy. I always enjoyed them.

good history is basicaly anything that has happened

good history is basicaly anything that has happened

No, good history is about understanding what happened (including not only the event but its context), and conveying the impact of those events/periods on the lives of contemporaries and, to a lesser extent, on us today.

For instance, knowing that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C. is useless trivia. So what? Thousands, possibly millions, have crossed the Rubicon - which is really a glorified stream - before and since Julius Ceasar, but nobody makes a big deal about it. As I write and you read this now, there are probably countless dozens of cars crossing the Rubicon in northern Italy. No one will write a book about any one of those cars, and if someone did, well, it certainly won't make any best sellers' lists.

The fact that in 49 B.C. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, in direct contravention of Roman republican law (whereby a general was not allowed to cross the Rubicon southwards with his assembled army) and of a Senate order, in essence signalling that Julius Caesar was leading a revolt and was marching south to defeat Pompey, puts this in some perspective; Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon - an uninteresting act unto itself - is seen today by historians as the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic, and the first act of the man who would (help) create the Roman Empire.

Similarly, an example I use commonly in discussions like this is that of the Treaty of Westphalia signed in 1648 between the Catholic and Protestant combatants of the Thirty Years War. The treaty was written purely as a means of preventing yet another Continent-wide religious war, and that's how the authors understood it at the time - but it had far-reaching consequences, far beyond what they intended in 1648. They literally changed the world. It's a long process to describe but essentially they accidentally created the modern nation-state - though it would take three centuries afterwards for the full implications to be felt. A historian has to be able to take a step back and look not only at an event or a period, but as well at how it impacts its own age and what changes in human societies came about as a result of it - some of them many years or even centuries after the event. Historians in the future, perhaps 300 years on, may look at the World Wars of the 20th century quite differently than we do now.

History as a scholarly discipline is about trying to understand human civilization and how it (they) came to be what they are today. Plotinus' points are spot-on as necessary traits of a historian, but the ultimate goal is to achieve (and be able to convey) an understanding about some developmental aspect of human civilization through time.

We are so lucky to have posts like the one just above in our midst. Thanks to you too Vrylakas.

* The ability to write clearly, expressing what you mean to say concisely and in a logical way.

* The ability to engage your audience and make them understand why this period is interesting and why they should care about it. That doesn't just mean that ghastly shibboleth of modernity, relevance, but getting people to see that the period or the figures from it can be interesting and engaging in their own right, irrespective of what difference they make to people now.

well is this meant to historians writing current history or past history...

anyways, a good thing to add is detail. Lot's of factual detail (if portraying what's going on at the time... or what one had witnessed). That makes a valuable historical source... which I would call good history.

(referring to Melissenos/Sperantzes account of the fall of Constantinople... as opposed to the other ones).

well spoken Kafka2. 'Bad history' has an agenda. 'Good history' reports reality with a nuetral perspective.

You could call David Irving the notorious Nazi apologist a historian. His is a good example of Bad History concealed as Good History (if you are a bit slow that is). He manages to create well crafted seemingly well supported pieces and by ommitting evidence to the contrary he then produces these massive pieces of semi-fiction. This plays on the poorly informed. I call it a misuse of history.

An important aspect of the craft of writing history is the validity of sources. Historians constantly have discussions about the sources available to their particular niche, how to interpret them and how much they can be trusted. This is an ongoing dialogue and of course there are no absolute answers. How much would it take to convince an outsider, let's say the proverbial alien dropping down on earth and asking about human history, that there was an event we call a genocide (or for this particular event, the Holocaust)? We still today have living witnesses, actual participants in the events, plus a huge volume of accumulated testimony given by others no longer alive but who did participate in these events, as well as the physical evidence left behind - but can someone reasonably look at this evidence and still not be convinced? I don't think so, I think the evidence in fact is overwhelming that a genocide event did take place in 1941-45, but in saying so I can only make clear what I think the evidence says, and what is reasonable to extract from that evidence. History as a discipline is not absolute. Someone like Irving likely has an agenda and is willfully misinterpreting or misjudging the evidence, but there are plenty of cases where honest and dedicated historians - experts in the same field - can disagree on how evidence can/should be judged.

Getting back to a point I made in my earlier post, and I'm only stepping backwards because this analogy occurred to me later, the difference between a historical "fact" (like the fact that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C. ) and History (upper-case "H") is akin to grabbing a bunch of eggs, flour, baking soda, sugar, nuts and butter; putting them on a table, and calling them cookies. In reality, they're not cookies; they're the raw ingredients for cookies - but they still need to be processed (i.e., mixed, formed, baked, etc.). Similarly, a historical "fact" is just trivia until a historian processes it - studies it, assesses it, puts it in context and gives it meaning in relationship to other historical facts, ultimately to tell a story.

You can tell I was hungry when I was thinking about this. ;)

You can tell I was hungry when I was thinking about this. ;)
That's an awesome analogy; you should be frequently hungry!! :mischief: I'm a
history major myself, and I'm going to remember that analogy for my next
discussion with non-Historians.

Of course, I will always cite my source... ;)

Wars, sex, and violence equates to good history.

My impression of "Bad History" is history that is left untouched. This can fit a number of cases. Many of you posters write about biased research, and so if the history is not discussed and thus left as fact is in most cases "Bad History."

I also view "Bad History" as being history that you are either researching or observing while neglecting the cultural and perceptive influence upon the laws, important persons, events or stories being told. When you flat out set unorganized points in a pattern without recognizing other variables that effect the historical event, then it is "Bad History."

I also view "Bad History" as being history that you are either researching or observing while neglecting the cultural and perceptive influence upon the laws, important persons, events or stories being told. When you flat out set unorganized points in a pattern without recognizing other variables that effect the historical event, then it is "Bad History."

Yes we also have to be careful when writing/researching history that we don't try to apply our own "cultural norms" to our subject if it is markedly different in any way from our own. That has the potential to lead to creation of bad or flawed history. I think that if you attempt to apply your own morality or social framework you are destined to not actually give an accurate report.

Its useful to evaluate the credentials of the author to see whether it looks like they are qualified to write reasonably unbiased accounts. For instance an author who has written several books on the subject and is a lecturer in the subject will probably be able to give a good account whereas a journalistic background may hint towards the author being more motivated in generating an account that is biased towards a particular view that may be linking to sales.

The point about not taken primary sources as gospel is also a good one since for example Thomas J Watson jr seems to have modified his view of the history of IBM to show that he urged IBM to enter the new computing market after they were languishing behind Remington Rand, when in fact there were several computers in development and one was even on display in the company headquarters. It is partially true in the sense that IBM would then focus on developing machines for the government but this may have been a mistake as they could have entered the business market earlier.

Also the point about history being the process of making facts is a good one since it allows history to tell a story that can keep the reader interested and to allow them to learn about the topic.

It goes deeper as well. It is certainly one thing to need to check for a writer's intentional bias - and that is a necessary step, as Dell points out - but one must also look for their unintentional biases.

Someone like Irving has an obvious political agenda in his writings and he is obviously trying to make the history fit around his ideology, but every human being is chock-full of different identities and cultural beliefs that color how they see the world. It is impossible for humans to be completely objective. This is a conundrum of course, because a historian must try to be as objective as possible in their work - their mission is to understand the events and peoples they study, and convey that understanding to others - but we as readers of history have to be aware of the authors' own background.

For instance: Edward Gibbon wrote what is still considered by many to be the definitive history of the late western Roman Empire in the late 18th century, in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Despite many new discoveries and works since, it is still an excellent source. However, it is riddled with many cultural notions that we must be aware of. First of all, the title: "Roman Empire"? By this, Gibbon was referring to the western half of the 5th century Roman Empire, and decidedly not the eastern half that would survive another 1000 years until 1453. This eastern half is referred to (quite derisively) by Western Europeans as "Byzantium", and is considered an entirely different and almost unrelated empire - though the Byzantines called themselves Romans and at least began their historical journey with Roman laws and customs. The point isn't to argue whether Byzantium was truly Roman or not, it is to point out that it is a popular cultural conception in western Europe (i.e., Gibbon's home area) that Byzantium wasn't Roman - and his book reflects this view. Also, Gibbon's book (actually, multi-volume study that most know only through severely abridged versions) ultimately looks at the collapse of (western) Rome as a crime scene, with Gibbons as the cop. He describes the collapse as a disaster, and when he looks for the reasons behind the collapse he is also assigning blame. Gibbons was a well-to-do, successful Englishman who circulated socially in the highest social circles of his country, during the height of British imperial power. Gibbon was proud to be British and the success of the British empire in his day seemed to validate the ultimate soundness and "goodness" of British society. Gibbon, in writing about Rome's collapse, was himself a subject of a mighty and prosperous empire; he saw empires as a good and beneficial thing, so his book about Rome's collapse is really a kind of lament. He quite angrily points an accusing finger at 5th century Christian radicals because they undermined many traditional (and successful) Roman institutions. For Gibbon, the subject of his book, Rome, was a good thing whose collapse was a disaster for humanity.

At about the same time Gibbon was finishing his volumes, American republicans (lower case "r") across the Atlantic in Philadelphia were pouring over Roman history too as they tried to create the first truly democratic constitution. They did not see the Roman empire as a positive thing; they were looking to understand why the Roman Republic fell - guys like Jefferson and Adams were studying Juliu Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon closely, to see how they could structure the new American government to withstand the kinds of pressures that destroyed the Roman republic. They equated the Roman empire - a model they desperately wanted to avoid - with King George III's Britain, an empire they did not sympathize with, for some obvious reasons.

The times and places we are born in impact how we see the world, and it is natural that such background cultural values will seep into any History we write. We now live in an age where democracy is ascendant, where we see History in terms of progress, and individualism is virtually a cult. There's nothing wrong with these or other (like Gibbon's) values; but as readers, this is why we must be aware of who wrote whatever history we are reading. Take the "individual freedom", moralism, democracy and anti-nationalism angles out of most histories written today about World War II, and can you recognize what's left? Can you imagine a future, say 100 years from now, where most people lament the defeat of Hitler's Germany?

That is a very good point, very well put.

I think the clear conclusion from all this is that history is a damnably slippery thing.

What about readability?
Is a accessible book, written in a good and "exciting" (as in fun/interesting to read) way better than a history book written with aweful language in a boring way, but being more correct?
Is it better with a factually extremely correct book, read by three old professors, than with a popular historical book (which may include a few errors), written by a journalist (or some other person, who's more of a writer than a historian)?

Quantity or quality? :)

This also ties in with the question if we can ever learn from history... Can those three old professors make us change course to avoid a historical pitfall?

I think it would be a balance between the two. :)

History becomes useless if it is inexcessable and its useless if it is fiction although its probably safer to lean towards extreme accuracy as at least people are not largely misinformed. I guess thats another question though, at what point does simplification become misleading and negatively impact on the value of the historical account.

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?

Plotinus hit the nail on the head. From my perspective, history can be useful, however we cannot reduce it to its uses, because that would be to fundamentally misunderstand it. Anyone who tries to reduce it to a "purpose" is already in error because they are trying to pre-define and limit something for everyone else.

I'll inject some more of my personal ideas. History at its highest level becomes an art form and allows the historian, by creating the work, and the reader, by reading it, to enter a kind of "contemplation" where the most varied ideas and concepts can be considered and understood on some level. Good history leads to a greater awareness of its subject, and not just in terms of "knowledge", though that indeed is absolutely fundamental to serious history, but in a kind of creative and intelligent interpretation. It leads to greater understanding of possibilities.

At the same time, history is intimately tied up with language and shares its weaknesses and strengths. It takes the form of narrative and is told by someone. History is an approximation and interpretation by nature, and this nature must be recognized by the Historian in order to avoid, as much as possible, falling prey to pre-conceived notions about what it should be about. Intelligent and creative interpretation is what interests me most, however it must include analytical and intellectual rigor and honesty of course. The best history, IMO, above any particular useful purposes it can serve, produces a kind of "aesthetic pleasure" and contemplation in the intellect. And I'm not referring to only texts, but also ideas. That is basically my very personal take ;)

edit: As far as accessibility goes, sometimes it's a virtue, and other times it's not important depending on content and context IMO. It depends.

I agree with the idea of "bad history" as being either history that is inaccurate, or biased, or poorly written. Good history is simply well written and accurate history. Great history is when a light is shown on history from an entirely new or brilliant angle which changes the way the reader looks at the world and its past.

[Mungaf] The problem is that accuracy isn't enough to make good history. For example, you could accurately describe in minute detail everything a certain person did on a certain day, but it wouldn't be good history. You have to select which events to describe. That's where it becomes difficult, because you have to establish what is relevant/interesting. There are no clear rules here. For example, what Hitler had for breakfast on 10 April 1910 probably isn't very interesting even in a biography of Hitler. But what he had for breakfast on 30 April 1945 might, conceivably, be interesting, because even someone's mundane actions in the hours before their death are just more intrinsically interesting (because we like to try to imagine what was going through their mind). This is why I think jonatas' post is exactly right: history is a narrative, but more than that, it is a narration. Who is narrating and who is listening? I think good history will always keep that in mind, even where it doesn't become explicit.

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?
It can be useful. It doesn't have to be. :)

However, I think, one point that hasn't been treated in this thread is what exactly history is? As Cicero pointed it out, the subject of debate has to be clearly defined before the discussion actually starts.* Are chronicles history? commentars (like Caesars or Procops work) history? Where lies the difference inbetween literature and historical books? Is their actually a difference? Does their need to be a differnce?

See, I just ask questions, but probably do say a lot just with them.

mitsho


*He let Scipio Africanus say that in "de re publica", I know that since I need to know it for my final oral exams (Latin) this wednesday. So wish me luck, also for the other exams, which start tomorrow.

It can be useful. It doesn't have to be. :)

Yes, history can have a whole range of utilities, but I would say we cannot reduce or equate a particular utility to being its "meaning". ;) IMO
There may not even be a great overarching "meaning", but rather meanings which emerge from different perspectives.

I am no longer necessarily talking about texts or even historians, but ideas and their interpretation, and how we view the past.

However, I think, one point that hasn't been treated in this thread is what exactly history is? As Cicero pointed it out, the subject of debate has to be clearly defined before the discussion actually starts.* Are chronicles history? commentars (like Caesars or Procops work) history? Where lies the difference inbetween literature and historical books? Is their actually a difference? Does their need to be a differnce?

See, I just ask questions, but probably do say a lot just with them.

mitsho


*He let Scipio Africanus say that in "de re publica", I know that since I need to know it for my final oral exams (Latin) this wednesday. So wish me luck, also for the other exams, which start tomorrow.

Mitsho, history can be anything. Let's forget texts and historians. Let's talk about ideas and interpretation. It can be thought itself. But then the question arises, why are you interested in it?

So, you're saying, history is nothing but facts? Everything else is interpretation?

Fine, but that's just boring.

So, you're saying, history is nothing but facts? Everything else is interpretation?

Fine, but that's just boring.

lol :D

and good luck with your latin exam ;)

That is a very good point, very well put.

I think the clear conclusion from all this is that history is a damnably slippery thing.
I agree.

And what Vrylakas brought up is the reason for the situation that every generation tends to rewrite history from its own perspective.

History isn't something immutable, set down in stone once it's been committed to paper, people (not just historians) are always playing around with it, reinterpreting it.

History writing is also inherently political. It's not by chance that rulers of nations have for centuries been avid readers of works of history.
History has been veeery useful for a lot of people over time. Who's using it in your neighbourhood right now? For what purpose?;)

Reading history is in itself an activity that changes it. We don't just write or read the stuff, we use it, and using it changes it. Gibbon, in Vrylakas' example, certainly couldn't imagine the audience he would have today, or the uses his book would be put to in the period inbetween him and us.

There are other historians who's work is more politically charged than Gibbon's of course.
Someone like the late 18th c. German historian Herder has achieved the remarkable status of being at the same time a major inspirer for Nazism (exceptionality of a German Kultur under threat) and at the same time of anthropological cultural relativism (respect for the exceptionality of all cultures and the need to understand them from an inside perspective).
Of course, it's not really Herder doing all this, it's the different uses he's been put to by others.

In any case, it usually pays to take notice (or try to work out should it not be overly obvious, and mostly it isn't) of a writers unstated agenda.

What's the writers view of agency in history?
Who is/are the subject/s, the actor/s, in history? (In Christian historical narrative it used to be God. From the 18th c. it increasingly tends to be the state.)
What's the object of study? Stated and/or implicit? (God, states, great men, genius of the human spirit, rulers, the people, culture, society, civilisation, science, chance, some other concept?)
What's the writers view of causality? (What is it that needs explaining, and what is it that provides an explanation? What's the role of luck/chance/providence etc?)
What's considered a sufficient explanation/cause in a narrative? (We generally tend to have an easier time accepting reasons of economy or power than say religion in our historical narratives these days.)
Who's the intended audience? What purpose is this written for?

I usually start there abouts.
Culture, society etc. usually comes in under what explains/what needs explaining in a narrative. (Always watch out for circular arguments.)

Oh, unfortunately, the way I tend to go about things, all history is technically "bad" (biased, flawed) if the objective is seen as writing it "as it actually was".
The good parts are still interesting though, for a variety of reasons, and could perhaps be said to be "bad, but a very high level" (that's a quote).:goodjob:

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian. ;)
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye ;)

That is, you have to have really good sources about what happened, plus you have to have a quite good understanding of these sources, i.e. why and how did they write what they did. And also, you need to have a sociological eye, that is understanding the broad societal, economic and cultural patterns and currents of the time.
While historical events are often seem to be individual, they should be placed into the appropriate context, which reveals the bias in the sources as well.
Somebody like Durkheim might believe that there is an objective truth out there, and one can say that an objective history exists, but once someone tries to tell or interpret history, it is fully exposed to one's cultural and social background (and some poeple can deal with this, while others cannot).
So if there isn't an objective history of the world, it all depends on how well we understand our sources.

My view on bad history is Propaganda type history. Example; I watched a doco last night on the history of aerial combat, enter the battle of britain and the quote "A desperate Goering switched his focus away from military installations and onto civilian targets, bringing a dark new face to air warfare". This is blatantly incorrect, Hitler demanded London be bombed in retaliation to a night raid by the British carried out on Berlin which hit civilian targets.

A Good History doco would have highlighted the flaws on both sides, rather than the ususal "Germans were the baddies and we owned them" flogged horse.

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian. ;)
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye ;)

Good history most definitely should encompass these aspects. Additionally an earlier post on this page stated entertainment value. I believe that this is very important as long as it emcompassed the above values.
In the last decade we have seen the release of a new wave of historical studies that are written in a more personal or entertaining style. Good examples of these are Anthony Beevor's "Berlin" and "Stalingrad". They personalise the events without comprimising the study. For me this is entertaining and educational. His impecable research also statisfys my desire to trust what I am reading as being non-biased. For history to bridge the gap to the new generation of students we need to tailor the delivery of history. Dry text books such as Gibbon, Toynbee etc. are important but are not the definative text. Sadly publishers will look very closely at the merits of publishing something that has been done to death. This is why historians like Beevor give me hope that history will continue to move with the times.

Gibbon a dry text book? He was one of the most elegant historical writers of all time. That's why he's still read today - not because he's the best historian of late antiquity, because clearly he's outdated, but for his style.

As for the style question: it depends on the era. What seems to be dry now, might have been very elegant and entertaining in its time. Also, there are historians who are simply better writers than others.
Now selling history is another issue, and publishers have their own choices in this. But there should be a border between writing in an entertaining style and writing in a sensational style for the sake of sensation.

As an example: Robert Kaplan is not a historian, but a journalist, nevertheless his very subjective perspective in his book about the Balkans (Balkan Ghosts, 1994) contributed to the distorted view on Southeast Europe. He wanted to be entertaining and earn big money, so he bothered less with facts. Now this should be okay, as long as one treats him as a semi-celeb journalist, but if his writings are used as history sources let's say 50 years from now, that's a different issue.

The problem is that an awful lot of people are rather gullible about what they read. In part, this is due to an inbuilt tendency that we all have, to varying extents, to believe the printed page. There is something very convincing about seeing something in a book, even though it might well not be true (I've been guilty of making the odd error in my own). When I worked as a proof-reader, one of the things I had to learn was *not* to assume that just because it's on the printed page it must be true.

Now, what's worrying is when people take this to extremes. A good example is when people think that information in a work of fiction is actually true. The prime instance of this at the moment is Dan Brown: the number of people who seem to think that his books are based upon actual history, and that the "revelations" therein have some connection to reality, is truly alarming. The interesting question is - who is to blame? You can't really blame Brown, since all he's done is write blatently fictional thrillers (although he does give them a patina of realism by saying things like "The Illuminati are a real organisation" even when they're blatantly not). Perhaps we should blame educational systems that don't give people enough critical acumen to be able to evaluate what they read.

Plotinus,
I should clarify my point on Gibbon. His writings are a valuable and important part of most students of the ancient world. Perhaps his works are being superceded now but they won't fade into obscurity for some time yet. I own a rather nice leather bound set of Gibbon and still use it carefully as a source.
On your other point...
I agree with your Dan Brown example. In fact Tom Clancy was also victim to this phenomenon in the 80's when he started his rise with war fiction. He took some accurate facts and then moulded them to suit a nice story. Unfortunately people took this fiction to be true and suddenly became "experts" in military hardware. Amusingly when he wrote about a stealth fighter before the F117 had been declassified he was investigated by the US government. I think that the Catholic Church has done the same thing with Brown haven't they? Anyway the point is that you are correct when you say too many believe what they read (see, hear etc.). Historical fiction (Troy, HBO's Rome, Empire, Pompeii by Robert Harris, the Rameses books etc.) all end up giving the layman a rather distorted view of history. This would never have happened if Ben Affleck had stopped the Germans attacking Pearl Harbour in WW1.

The problem is that an awful lot of people are rather gullible about what they read.

One professor of mine once said that if, when you're reading a history, you increasingly get the feeling that one group are the "good guys" and another are the "bad guys", then a little red light should go on in your head telling you that you're reading propaganda.

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian.
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye

Sociology? What is sociology? ;)

One professor of mine once said that if, when you're reading a history, you increasingly get the feeling that one group are the "good guys" and another are the "bad guys", then a little red light should go on in your head telling you that you're reading propaganda.

Words of wisdom, indeed.

But is it possible to write purely unbiased (Descartian sense) history?

This is off-topic, but Sherlock Holmes warned that you should never theorize without knowing all the facts because then you twist and turn the facts to mesh your theories rather than theories to suit the facts.

I can't really speak of history, but as a chemist I know that omitting sample data to better suit your theory is a cardinal sin.

Sociology? What is sociology? ;)

Good question... Maybe the extra layer which helps to keep historical events together in one big picture? ;)
When one writes about history it is seldom about one individual, but about groups of people, and this is where sociology, or I should say the sociological imagination comes in.
If the thread question would be "what makes good sociology?", I would say: history. :king:

I think that the Catholic Church has done the same thing with Brown haven't they?

Well, they're not investigating him for exposing secrets or anything, because he hasn't, but I do know that Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, archbishop of Genoa, has been commissioned to write the Catholic Church's official response to "The Da Vinci Code". Not that he really needs to, as there are enough fairly solid refutations of its "historical" claims floating around already. Plus, of course, anyone with a brain who reads it ought to be able to come up with a few of their own.

This is off-topic, but Sherlock Holmes warned that you should never theorize without knowing all the facts because then you twist and turn the facts to mesh your theories rather than theories to suit the facts.

But no-one can know every fact in the world. So anyone who theorises does so whilst ignorant of some facts - indeed, while ignorant of most facts. Of course, Holmes meant that you must know all the relevant facts before theorising. But how can you possibly know which facts are relevant? The only way you can do that is by theorising. The notion that one dispassionately collects a whole bunch of facts and then theorises on the basis of them is a distorted view of both science and history. Scientists and historians alike work in a more complex way. You gather some facts, then you tentatively form a theory to explain them, then you use that theory to suggest what facts to look for next, then you see if those facts confirm or oppose your theory, you modify it accordingly, and so on. Theorising without fact-gathering is impotent, but fact-gathering without a theory is directionless.

But how can you possibly know which facts are relevant? The only way you can do that is by theorising. The notion that one dispassionately collects a whole bunch of facts and then theorises on the basis of them is a distorted view of both science and history. Scientists and historians alike work in a more complex way. You gather some facts, then you tentatively form a theory to explain them, then you use that theory to suggest what facts to look for next, then you see if those facts confirm or oppose your theory, you modify it accordingly, and so on. Theorising without fact-gathering is impotent, but fact-gathering without a theory is directionless.

Indeed. We must question to what extent historians rely upon "received information". As I was hinting at earlier, literally anything can be the subject of history, depending upon one's interest. But real knowledge is dependent upon something more than just books. Understanding of language (both one's own and what is being studied) and culture is paramount to any worthwhile interpretation of the past. Regardless of our background, it is extremely difficult to escape our own prejudices.

Regardless of our background, it is extremely difficult to escape our own prejudices.

That was my point above, it just got lost somewhere.

For some reason I had posted this into the wrong thread a few days ago. Apologies dear members. :blush:
---------------

Just wanted to link this thread up to a very good article written by Ciceronian which deals with the relationship between written and archaeological evidence.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154482