Historical Methodology

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

For the benefit of those not knowing what differing types of methodology that can be used historically, the following is presented. It may be of some importance in relation to analyzing the plausibility of Kosminski, or any other suspect, or subject, within Ripperology.

To the uninitiated, the term philosophy of history refers to the theoretical aspect of history, in two differing senses. One can distinguish critical philosophy of history from speculative philosophy of history.

Critical philosophy of history is the "theory" aspect of the discipline of academic history, and deals with questions such as the nature of historical evidence, the degree to which objectivity is possible, etc.

Speculative philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history. Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history. Though there is some overlap between the two, they can usually be distinguished; modern professional historians tend to be skeptical about speculative philosophy of history.

Sometimes critical philosophy of history is included under historiography. Philosophy of history should not be confused with the history of philosophy, which is the study of the development of philosophical ideas through time.

Speculative philosophy of history asks at least three basic questions:

1) What is the proper unit for the study of the human past — the individual subject?

2) Are there any broad patterns that we can discern through the study of the human past? Are there, for example, patterns of progress? Or cycles? Is history deterministic? Or are there no patterns or cycles, and is human history random? Related to this is the study of individual agency and its impact in history, functioning within, or opposed to, larger trends and patterns.

3) If history can indeed be said to progress, what is its ultimate direction? What (if any) is the driving force of that progress?


And if anybody is still following.. it means that under the broad outline of studying history there are two main sections, but there are also many sub-sections than can envelope and interact under each of the two main sections as listed above.

The references and links to each of these philosophies are almost endless, and the text book methodology of teaching history is often undergoing structural change. Historians in general have been known not like a change of direction in historical methodology within any given genre. When forced to re-think and re-evaluate, it often takes many years for acceptance of any change. Historians however, are by no means the only ones that dislike change to known and taught acceptances. Anthropologists and Scientists are very much the same in many ways.

Two examples of this are:-

Thor Heyerdahl, the Norwegian ethnographer and adventurer with a background in zoology and geography. He became notable for his "Kon-Tiki" expedition, in which he sailed 8,000 km (4,300 miles) by raft from South America to the Tuamotu Islands. In doing so, he questioned the mainstream teachings of history in proving that it was indeed possible to sail such a distance using local products in the direction he did, thus proving that the immigrants to Polynesia came not from Asia, but South America. The Kon-Tiki expedition was inspired by old reports and drawings made by the Spanish Conquistadors of Inca rafts, and by native legends and archaeological evidence suggesting contact between South America and Polynesia. He first questioned this whilst living on a remote island and found tremendous difficulty in sailing a raft for fishing towards the East, and suggested that the original immigrants came from South America, sailing Westwards, as the plants which pollenated the islands had done, carried by the winds and tides. Anthropologists continued to, and to some extent still do believe, based on linguistic, physical, and genetic evidence, that Polynesia was settled from west to east, migration having begun from the Asian mainland. Anthropologist and National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence Wade Davis also criticised Heyerdahl's theory in his book The Wayfinders, which explores the history of Polynesia. Davis says that Heyerdahl "ignored the overwhelming body of linguistic, ethnographic, and ethnobotanical evidence, augmented today by genetic and archaeological data, indicating that he was patently wrong. However, undeterred by this, Heyerdahl carried on his expeditions. He travelled by similar raft to Easter Island, and was the first to discover that it originally had been heavily wooded, and the ceramics found were pre.Inca. This indicated that his theory of migration from East to West was well founded, as told by Inca historical tales. Heyerdahl is honoured today for his massive contribution to understanding and reavaluating world history.

He amassed 17 academic honours for his achievements :-

Retzius Medal, Royal Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography (1950)
Mungo Park Medal, Royal Scottish Society for Geography (1951)
Bonaparte-Wyse Gold Medal, Société de Géographie de Paris (1951)
Bush Kent Kane Gold Medal, Geographical Society of Philadelphia (1952)
Honorary Member, Geographical Societies of Norway (1953), Peru (1953), Brazil (1954)
Elected Member Norwegian Academy of Sciences (1958)
Fellow, New York Academy of Sciences (1960)
Vega Gold Medal, Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography (1962)
Lomonosov Medal, Moscow State University (1962)
Gold Medal, Royal Geographical Society, London (1964)
Distinguished Service Award, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington, USA (1966)
Member American Anthropological Association (1966)
Kiril i Metodi Award, Geographical Society, Bulgaria (1972)
Honorary Professor, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico (1972)
Bradford Washburn Award, Museum of Science, Boston, USA, (1982)
President's Medal, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, USA (1996)
Honorary Professorship, Western University, Baku, Azerbaijan (1999)

13 State or Governmental honours :-

(Norway (twice), Peru (twice), Italy, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Netherlands, Malta, Austria and two specific ones.. one from the United Nations (The International Pahlavi Environment Prize 1978) and the prestigious Civitan International World Citizenship Award.

In addition he held 5 honorary degrees, in Norway, Russia, Peru, Cuba and the Ukraine.

He wrote at least 15 books, hundreds of manuscripts and articles and other written works.

All this because he refused to accept what he had been told was historical fact, and based his theories on logic as he saw it. If the plants came from the East, why couldn't the humans? He was told he was looking at the problem wrong and that he didn't understand or realise what was correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other example is Michael Brown. This man is an astronomer. He is famous for instigating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet.

Pluto’s demotion is overwhelmingly intuitive to most scientists, although a precise justification remains elusive. People like Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson and Caltech astronomer Mike Brown have wrote books explaining the IAU’s infamous decision. In short, the astronomical community pulled a collective all-nighter to agree on a technical definition of “planet” that would exclude Pluto. Historically, planets have been loosely defined as unique objects that dominate the solar system; no precise definition has ever been sufficient to capture planetary diversity while excluding interlopers like Pluto.

The IAU’s attempt, no exception, is clunky (why does a planet need to “clear its orbit”? What does that even mean?), but prevents the nightmarish alternative. Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt, a population of icy bodies very far from the Sun, some of which are probably larger than Pluto. If Pluto is a planet, then the larger members of the Kuiper and asteroid belts are also planets and the word’s utility has vanished. The eight unique planets deserve individual examination, but Pluto must be considered statistically with its compatriots in the Kuiper Belt.

Now what in heaven's name one asks, has this to do with Ripperology, and History. Well, a lot in fact. When the IAU met, it was a very long, drawn out debate involving all the so-called experts in the field to vote on the demotion of Pluto to Dwarf planet. Much acrimony and uproar ensued. Normally quiet and pleasant people by nature, astronomer turned on fellow astronomer in bitter fued. Finally, after what is described as an "all-nighter", the vote was announced in favour of Pluto's demotion.

This sparked a reaction that no-one was ready for. Even today, Brown recieves hate mail from 3rd graders for his actions. Pluto is sentimentally loved, it seems, and the favourite planet of many youngsters. Bagfuls of hate mail were sent his way when the decision was first announced.

Here it must be remembered that it was Brown who dared question the known teachings of the scientific astronomical world. He defied their words, and set about using logic to underline his theory. When logic is used against scientific norms, uproar occurs. This man stands today as an astronomical pioneer. The powers that be will never all agree with him and his theories, but he refused to bow to traditional thinking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for anyone wanting to know why it is not only healthy but good to question so-called historical methodology, the answers are given above.

The bottom line is that each acceptance of something different is always shrouded in derision in it's earliest stages.

Finally, people can still choose which way they prefer to think.. but more importantly, they can choose the way they either want to accept or reject historical teachings, handed down over generations within a genre. That is the beauty of it. Choice. Free choice.

So next time you consider something historically unacceptable, and perhaps take up arms with the written word against the known theories or even theorists, remember you may just be paving a way for something ground breaking. You may be wrong....but it is virtually guarenteed that you will meet an awful lot of opposition along the way!

Good luck and good hunting


kindly


Phil

[Phil H]

The bottom line is that each acceptance of something different is always shrouded in derision in it's earliest stages.

Indeed it has been suggested that new ideas (in any field) go through three stages of acceptance:

1) This is rubbish, no one could believe that!

2) Actually we always believed that!

3) How can you suggest anyone ever thought any different?

A good post, Phil.

I would want to add that because the usual historical method involves "peer" review of ideas and acceptance into the "conventional wisdom" is step by step, and dependent on "colleagues" agreeing with the new idea(s). Reputations, indeed, careers, may rely on what has been said in the past not being over-turned without exceptionally good reason. If that is done then all the scholarship, all the certainties, of generations of academics may be rendered worthless overnight. It happens, but there will always be caution.

Thus, if a scholar/archaeologist in the field of Egyptology were to make a discovery that "proves" that past assumptions about chronology were incorrectly based, then all the books, all the theories,maybe every assumption underlying our interpreattion of the past would be threatened. A man who later proved to be a "biblical fundamentalist" (for want of a better term) had a TV series and book that tried to prove double-counting in Egyptian chronology. I don't believe that his ideas, although well-presented, have gained ground because of their implications, and because his motivation was to prove a theory - something with inevitably and unsurprisingly attracts academic suspicion.

This leads me on to another point, it is often not properly appreciated that there is no simple objective "historical explanation" than waits to be, or can be found and refined and which is "RIGHT". The reality is that "history" is based on our interpretation of past events, of linking material into chains of cause and effect. This is, of ccourse, entirely subjective.

Each generation interprets the past in its own way. In the area of Ripper studies, Watergate gave rise to the BBC/Knight conspiracy theory, which would probably not have been previously acceptable. Recent events made it more plausible. It has now been utterly discredited.

There is also the "school of self-claimed historians, including such as Graham Hancock or the Holy Blood/Holy Grail trio (Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh) who take a theory and then try to bend facts to support their contention. Thuus they start with (say) a view that "Atlantis must have existed." There is no direct evidence for this, but they interpret and use exisiting facts to support their theory, twisting or ignoring evidence as it suits them. This is bogus and why adherents and practitioners of the "historical method" resist such outlandish views so strongly.

In Ripperology, I would suggest that thse for whom the writings of Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten are inconvenient, have to find ways to ignore their views, so they try to disparage or re-interpret or just create uncertainty. It can be effective. But as students of the conventional historical method will recognise, these are the ways of the charalatan and the snake-oil salesman, cheap and misleading. You CANNOT ignore evidence and it is dangerous to start with the theory (even if you try to mask that) and argue to a preconceived end. You will eventually be found out.

I almost laughed aloud when reading a book a day or two ago. It was a cheapish volume seeking to argue that Jesus has a different background than the biblical. The author interpreted the King James translation of the bible which states that "Joseph did not know Mary until after they were married, as meaning they had not MET!!. In fact the term is a euphemism for not having sexual relations!! The author thus demonstrated either ignorance or a deliberate intent to mislead - neither encouraging for the theory they expound.

Sorry to have gone on so long,

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Generalisation

...
This leads me on to another point, it is often not properly appreciated that there is no simple objective "historical explanation" than waits to be, or can be found and refined and which is "RIGHT". The reality is that "history" is based on our interpretation of past events, of linking material into chains of cause and effect. This is, of ccourse, entirely subjective.
...
In Ripperology, I would suggest that thse for whom the writings of Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten are inconvenient, have to find ways to ignore their views, so they try to disparage or re-interpret or just create uncertainty. It can be effective. But as students of the conventional historical method will recognise, these are the ways of the charalatan and the snake-oil salesman, cheap and misleading. You CANNOT ignore evidence and it is dangerous to start with the theory (even if you try to mask that) and argue to a preconceived end. You will eventually be found out.
...
Phil

Apropos of the passage in bold above, I do not agree with this as it appears to be a generalisation.

Whilst there are those who undoubtedly seek to 'disparage or re-interpret or just create uncertainty' if they find 'the writings of Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten...inconvenient' this is not true of all, and it should be qualified. For it is relevant and necessary to assess the reliability and veracity, and the nature, of these historical sources before applying them to our interpretations.

No genuine historical source, such as the three mentioned above, should be regarded as 'inconvenient', or for that matter, incontrovertibly correct, for that indicates either naivety or an agenda. We should seek historical truth as far as we can and treat our sources accordingly.

[Phil H]

I don't quibble with your point in the slightest, Stewart. Thank you for making the point clear.

I may not have been clear enough that, in the case of the words you bolded, I was not talking of anyone except those who seek shortcuts. I was thinking of those who take a similar approach to (what I call) "pseudo-historians" - - such as von daniken, Baigent, Lee etc and Graham Hancock and employ a fast and loose approach to inconvenient sources. Since the original Holy Blood book was published in the 80s I have read a lot of that genre of stuff and recognise the approach.

Of course the historian must acssess his sources. In another thread, I think (earlier today) I commented on the two approaches to research - what i characterised broadly as the "academic" and the "theory-led". The latter is what I had in mind as finding sources at times inconvenient as they get in the way of the theory.

The "academic" historian may find a source "difficult" - in that it doesn't chime with or straightly contradicts other sources or evidence, but the out-of-place is not ignored or thrown out, but openly discussed as problematic.

My thanks for your perceptive intervention and apologies if i inadvertently disparaged anyone or misled by my careless phrasing.

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi Phil.

Could you please cite your sources for the definitions, etc. used in Post #1?

Thank you,
Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bunny,

As I stated in post one, "The references and links to each of these philosophies are almost endless" and the various links to information on Heyerdahl and Brown are also around.

It wasn't meant as a piece to be a be all and end all referenced definitive, nor a detailed piece, either chronologically or otherwise, and had I done so I would have made the piece a great deal longer and far more detailed. I deliberately tried to keep it short as for the reader to not lose interest. It was just a piece that I put together for exercise purposes...a thought some might take some interest in. Nothing more. Had I written it for Ripperologist or the Wiki etc, I would have expanded upon it and detailed and cross- referenced every detail.

If you wish me to go back and find all the different references of course I can.. but to what purpose, may I ask? Some of it is basic stuff which is pretty well-known as a definition. It's not a con trick.. it's as it is. A simple guide to differing methodology. Not an exam paper. It took about 3 hours to put together..So yes, I can do it if need be.. but to what purpose, may I ask? I didn't realise people would be that interested in philosophical history, historical methodology or the philosophical methodology of history!!


kindly

Phil

[Supe]

Phil Carter,

he questioned the mainstream teachings of history in proving that it was indeed possible to sail such a distance using local products in the direction he did, thus proving that the immigrants to Polynesia came not from Asia, but South America.

Instead, what Heyerdahl did was create the "Kon-Tiki" fallacy within the study of history. By his voyage he proved he could do what he did, not that South American natives might have done so many years ago. They may have done it but Heyerdahl's journey no more proved it happened than any other modern recreation of a supposed historical event.

Don.

[Archaic]

Hi Phil.

If you wish me to go back and find all the different references of course I can.. but to what purpose, may I ask?

I asked because the citing of one's sources is a key aspect of Historical Method. All sources must be carefully evaluated, and some sources will be given more credibility than others. For instance, primary sources are preferred to secondary or tertiary sources, and a text-book on a particular subject is a much more credible source than a Wikipedia entry.

There are many sub-fields within the study of History. 'Philosophy of History' is one. However, it has an epistemological focus and is unlikely to be particularly useful in evaluating a given historical personage; in this case Kosminski. Instead a historian would wish to study the primary sources associated with this individual.

I love History and find its study fascinating, so I think this was a very good idea for a thread.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bunny,

I asked because the citing of one's sources is a key aspect of Historical Method.

I wasn't using historical methodology myself. I was explaining the differences of it's meanings. That is a totally different comcept.

All sources must be carefully evaluated, and some sources will be given more credibility than others. For instance, primary sources are preferred to secondary or tertiary sources, and a text-book on a particular subject is a much more credible source than a Wikipedia entry.

Well, as above really.. i was just putting together pieces that explained the differences. How credible a source is also depends on the other factors, as you well know, and doesn't need discussing here. or we will be here all night, which is something I have no intention of doing.. Primary secondary etc etc... yes, that is a given.

There are many sub-fields within the study of History. 'Philosophy of History' is one.

As I specifically stated in my posting.

However, it has an epistemological focus and is unlikely to be particularly useful in evaluating a given historical personage; in this case Kosminski. Instead a historian would wish to study the primary sources associated with this individual.

The mention of Kosminski, "or any suspect or subject" within the genre was a non-specific, and wasn't meant, or indeed written, with any specific personage in mind when explaining the differences as written in the fashion they were. So this does not pertain to "this" individual".. or any individual, specicfically.

I love History and find its study fascinating, so I think this was a very good idea for a thread.

I'm pleased you liked the idea and the study of history. Thank you for the compliment. Very kind of you to say.

Phil H wrote an excellent reply regarding the role of the Historian in evaluating history, and from which stool differing historians stand upon enhances his words. (Thank you Phil, for the reply and the comments)


kindly


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

It changed the way many historians viewed this particular piece of history.. either a little, or a lot. That was my point. His simple view deriving from how plants came to the islands from the East led him to explore the possibilty when all others said.. not possible. I have read many books by Heyerdahl and on him by others, both for and against. I live 20 minutes from Larvik, his hometown. Some of his work is yet to be translated into English. I have visited the Kon-Tiki museum in Oslo on 4 occasions with various school groups. Most here in this area of South Eastern Norway are encouraged from a young age to read up on the man. He was a fascinating man, both privately and in his work within the field mentioned.

kindly

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

I am sure that Thor is a folk-hero in Sweden and perhaps for you as well. Moreover, his Kon-Tiki voyage (and other, later ones) were grand aventures. But they did not prove what he suggested and it is a fallacy to believe they did. No more so than to dress in 19th century clothing, wear 19th century shoes and walk from Dutfield's Yard to Mitre Square in fewer than thirty minutes would prove the same man killed Stride and Eddowes. At best it would prove that, once anyway, it was possible for a man to walk from one location to another in a short enough time to have committed both murders.

In fact, this sort of fallacy -- because it was perhaps possible to recreate means it happened -- is oft referred to as the "Kon-Tiki Fallacy." No disrespect meant; just that the accomplishment is twisted to unwarranted ends.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Dearest Don..

Far be it from me to tell you this....but he is Norwegian.. and has no folk-hero worship in Sweden, a totally different country..nor, for that matter, in my life either! I just find his life and personage fascinating. I said that he changed the way historians thought.. not that EVERYONE accepted it as proof. Some did. Some didn't

No disrespect taken.. I quoted two people who thought the same thing as you.


kindly


Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Far be it from me to tell you this....but he is Norwegian..

Ah, but you just did. Promises, promises.

And if he is not a hero to the Swedes, their loss. Among my heros growing up was Shackleton; hardly a Yank but one heckuva man.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

There is still a rivalry between Sweden and Norway.. when Abba came out, it was almost check mate... according to the Swedes. Then the oil was made the most of on the West Coast.. and Norway became, as it is today either the richest or 2nd richest land in the world... and when it comes to cross country skiing- well.... its a hands down victory to the Norwegians.. and it rankles.. mostly on a friendly basis I might add.

So Heyerdahl is largely just an "International" adventurer to the Swedes.


kindly

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

How credible a source is also depends on the other factors, as you well know, and doesn't need discussing here. or we will be here all night, which is something I have no intention of doing.

No, I don't think you would want to talk about sources since you stole -- without quotation marks, attribution or citation -- most of your information on Heyerdahl in your initial post from Wikipedia. A couple of examples follow.

You: Thor Heyerdahl, the Norwegian ethnographer and adventurer with a background in zoology and geography. He became notable for his "Kon-Tiki" expedition, in which he sailed 8,000 km (4,300 miles) by raft from South America to the Tuamotu Islands.

Wikipedia:
Thor Heyerdahl (October 6, 1914, Larvik, Norway – April 18, 2002, Colla Micheri, Italy) was a Norwegian ethnographer and adventurer with a background in zoology and geography. He became notable for his Kon-Tiki expedition, in which he sailed 8,000 km (4,300 miles) by raft from South America to the Tuamotu Islands.

You:
Anthropologist and National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence Wade Davis also criticised Heyerdahl's theory in his book The Wayfinders, which explores the history of Polynesia. Davis says that Heyerdahl "ignored the overwhelming body of linguistic, ethnographic, and ethnobotanical evidence, augmented today by genetic and archaeological data, indicating that he was patently wrong.

Wiki: Anthropologist and National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence Wade Davis also criticised Heyerdahl's theory in his book The Wayfinders, which explores the history of Polynesia. Davis says that Heyerdahl "ignored the overwhelming body of linguistic, ethnographic, and ethnobotanical evidence, augmented today by genetic and archaeological data, indicating that he was patently wrong."

Moreover, your list of academic honors is taken in whole, without attribution, from Wikipedia.

Alas, this is not a fallacy on your part but plagiarism, the sin against the Holy Ghost in the practice of history. I trust it was simply a mistake on your part.

Don.