Is History True? Essay

Historical theories argon just like any theory argon subject to feud among different populations and groups. Two of the most imminent historians, Oscar Handlin and William McNeil gave interesting viewpoints backed up by strong points. In taking Sides Clashing Views on polemic Issues in American accounting, Volume II, gave an interesting overview of how these two elite historians are able to state their points so clearly. As highly influenced as their workings are which eitherowed me to see from within their internal window I palpate myself agreeing more with Handlins perspective.According to Oscar Handlin from Truth in History (1979), gave a startling concept of how diachronic rectitude is establish on the unadorned expresss those that we can understand and interpret. Handlin gave implicit indications that history does ring honor cod to the fact that our current evidence of the past should be based on thoughtful analysis and not just necessary based on numerical or sta tistical evidence as those obtained by scientific measures.Oscar Handling says that evidence is chronological, evidence is vocabulary, and evidence is context. Fact is something of greens basis for all historians despite the difference in their interpretation and that scientific methods mustiness be used to distinguish between fact and opinions. McNeil on the different hand, have a different opinion on this matter. McNeil speculates that historic lawfulness is not influence by the desires or vision of the viewer, exactly is genuinely solid scientific evidence itself.McNeils essay, Truth, Myth, and History, gave an emphasis on the falsehood of diachronic truth, and also highlights the idea that it have no scientific methodology behind it, making it nothing but judgments, choices, and interpretive opinions. McNeil see that all the evidence becomes nothing but a type of collection, intimately like in literature for the reader to understand and interpret but does not give a credible meaning or intelligibility to the inscribe of the past. McNeil argues that truth is more likely a myth and distinguished by different groups in different situation at different time. In other words, historical truth is more like the way with which iodin interprets the material depending on their circumstance and environment. Almost like a self-fulfilled divination of the human mind and not actual facts. He further speculates that every(prenominal)(prenominal) culture has its throw version of truth truth about its own culture as well as the truth about other cultures.Truth to one person may not be truth to another. He later concludes that all these outside forces of culture, background, relationships, and society affect the take aim of truth whether the individual realizes it or not. History tends to be biased based because they heavily relied on what the truth means to each person in a personal manner. McNeil believes that history is a myth and becomes self validatin g. In my analysis of the work of these two striking viewpoints, I must conduct that I agree more with Handling for a variety of factors.McNeil gives implications of his viewpoints on the truth and validity of history and how he feels that scientific evidence must be present for history to be consider a truth. I find this to be a flawed approach because to base every piece of k like a shotledge upon scientific evidence has a bit of hypocritical ring to it. It is also important to point out that current historical findings are not found according to historical viewpoints alone, but is a mixture of scientific technology and many experts from all categorical check that weave up our current knowledge of history as well. vindicatory because we cant prove something doesnt mean it does not survive unless we can prove that it is indeed nonexistent. I believe that as humans, we all have an original curiosity for what we know now and just because something cannot be measured scientifically does not necessary label it as untrue. For instance, psychological science was once considered untrue by scientific standards but have now find its way into the scientific arena. On the other hand, scientific evidence are not always true when new evidence proves that the forward truth is indeed false.This gave me reasons to believe that it is better to take on a flexible approach when it comes to historical evidence. In defense of Handlings viewpoint, historians also use scientific tools such as DNA replications and half-life techniques to determine the age and location of its artifacts. The truth in History is forward course, as important as the truth in any discipline. History is based on facts derived from the past and thus provides a solid initiation on the truth of the information obtained.Historians are able to obtain the historical information from different locations and find sources of evidence or those leading to evidence. The truth in history is thus, built on the fou ndation of facts and grounded in common knowledge and understanding. History is depended upon to develop a society and used as a tool to correct political mistakes of the past. Historians have the necessary skills and tools to see and validate historical events, evidence, and facts as much as scientists have the skills and mature technology to analyze scientific evidence.Therefore, Hardings theory is more judge and that history is indeed based on the truth and knowledge of historical evidence and the foundation of our diverse understanding and development as a civilized community. Work Cited Handlin, Oscar. Truth in history. Cambridge, Mass Belknap P, 1979. Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. Taking Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History, Vol. II. New York McGraw-Hill, 2000. Schwandner, Stephanie. Albanian Identities Myth and History. New York Indiana UP, 2002.