History

Please take a few minutes and comment on the Cheques activity we did in class. As you reflect upon your role as a Historian, what did you learn about the discipline? What are the strengths and weaknesses of gaining Knowledge through the study of History?

When we did the Cheques activity, we acted as historians because we looked over our evidence and tried to create a hypothesis. Even though we did not know the back story, we used the facts that were presented through the form of cheques in order to come up with a story.

Throughout history, historians have made up their own conclusions based on the facts that they have been presented. Historial accounts vary from one historian to the next because data can always be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Another important piece of historical accounts is that: historians have had to put stories together that everyone could agree upon. Some historians thought that certain evidence was important and not others. If some information does not fit the story, then it is thrown out as an "outlier."

• These questions need to be addressed: What is relevant? What is subjective? What is important?

Other questions play a large role in historical accounts: How do you react to new information? Do we ever have all the information? What happens if you are invested in a theory? Confirmation Bias? Can mob mentality influence history? What is "crucial" information?

The power of argument is evident in history. One can literally make anything sound convincing, and sometimes it is difficult to accept the other interpretation.

When we were presenting our final hypothesis in my Theory of Knowledge class, it became evident that most people in my class were really invested in the Cheques activity. Arguments arose among classmates, which reflects back on the idea that once people become really invested in a theory; they do not want someone to disprove it. This makes sense because if one spends years researching in order to prove a theory and has it suddenly disproven, it is an upsetting defeat. Therefore, I can see how people often use Confirmation Bias when researching a specific area. After all, who would include the outliers, when they are trying to prove something, not disprove it.

It is nearly impossible to know exactly what correct history is. Every historian will think that they are correct in their assumptions, however they could be mistaken. It is difficult to know how to judge sources: Is a primary source the most accurate source of all? Primary Sources are important because they give a biased firsthand viewpoint of events as they were seen through the eyes of people. However, so much can happen in the blink of an eye. Primary sources might at first seem like they should be prized above all, but they can be just as deceving. So should only educated historians write history? That is difficult to decide, as well because they lack the empirical knowledge of people, who witnessed the events. However, historians do have the credentials: education, awards, etc. Does that make them entitled to write history though? I think that all historical accounts should be judged equally. After all, who is to say what is the correct view of the historical event. No one can ever be sure exactly what happened. It is impossible for everyone to agree on one viewpoint. All historical versions should be judged equally.