Methodology
Errors

The study of history runs counter to the historian's own natural preferences. We are all disposed to like what is widely accepted, or amusing, or impressive, or congenial to our feelings. We don't instinctively question a good story when we hear it. We are thus vulnerable to the currently popular doctrine that history is impossible anyway. If not, why undertake the tedious work of doing it right? In such ways, certain tendencies to error are reinforced by our own imperfect nature, or by the theories of our decadent time. They become recurrent errors, and conscientious historians need to be alert against them. The critical spirit has to be learned, and it has to be supported by continual reinforcement in use. As a learning tool for the novice, and as a reminder for the old hand, we mention a few of these errors here.

• Solipsism (Denying the Past)
• The Lisbon Earthquake (Disconnecting Events)
• Boris Gnedenko (Thinking the Worst)
• Buckingham Palace: Mistaking Awesome for Ancient
• Abraham Lincoln (Mistaking Image for Individual)
• The Marco Polo Bridge (Trusting Government Documents)
• The Horn Papers (Trusting Local Artifacts)
• William Tell (Trusting Romantic Legends)

These points tend to focus on single details, within one historical tradition. There are also higher levels. For a sample of a problem at a higher level, see the following:

• The F-Word (in the Comparative History section)

15 June 2004 / Contact The Project / Exit to Methodology Page