Aantekeningen van de hoorcolleges van theorie III, week 1 tot en met 7, in het Engels. Zitten ook
aantekeningen en citaten van de video’s in de prezi bij.
Hoorcollege aantekeningen week 1
Everything on the prezi will probably come on the exam. Always take the prezi as a good for
studying for the exam. Make mindmaps, relate concepts, definitions and examples. It’s about
thinking in concepts, which requires a different learning style. Just reading won’t help, you have to
grasp it.
Theory 2
- Theory 2 concept of reverse engineering. From the finished product you start asking how is this
made? Now we apply it in theory 3. The finished product is the literature. By applying this is how
you understand how it is made, then you understand historiography.
- Theory 2 4 questions of nature, object, method, aim. By going down underwater we discovered
for example we can look at history how romans and greeks looked at history: tyché: underlying
assumptions of fortune which underlies all greek and roman writing. What is history according to
greeks and romans: fortune, divine providence. We will focus on the underlying assumptions of
historiography through the articles.
From theory 2 to theory 3
Apply the theories in your practical work. Together with the compass of critical thinking the
theories will help you write your thesis. Master practical history: public history. All those 3
specializations are practical in history. This course prepares for that master.
The elements
Good tool to analyze texts. Use it not only when you analyze texts, but also when you write
yourself.
All elements are related to each other, you can enter from any element. What concepts are used?
What are the underlying assumptions? Normally we start with what is the interpretation. Is the
compass applicable to history? If you apply critical thinking to history, and you see how history is
structured, how do you think that history developed over time? Is historiography changing
overtime? (yes) but is there progress, or change over time?
- “It leads to different conclusions.”
- “information stays the same, but preferences and mentalities change overtime.” -> purpose
and perspectives. preferences, values, underlying assumptions are typical of point of view.
Perspectives, point of views change and that explains why on the basis of the same evidence
historians come to different conclusions.
- “main change overtime is the challenging of assumptions. Every development challenges a
certain assumptions. Ranke said: you can’t take the historian out. But then someone else said you
can the historian out. If you read an interpretation and you think I think differently about this
subject. That’s where change may start. If you have this feeling when reading for your thesis, don’t
push it away. Write it down. Start analyzing underlying assumptions that you read, take them out.
Get out of the frame of reference of the book you are reading up to your own frame of reference. If
you change assumptions, that has implications, points of views may change.
- “the notion of concept.” You can also change concepts.
Then there is the question: Does history improve? Are we better historians now than Ranke was?
Get hold of the underlying assumptions so you can develop your own point of view. If you want to
be a successful historian you have to write something new. Something original. But if you want to
be original you have to know what the other have written. So you need to understand the other, you
,need to understand their assumptions. If you want to step out of that paradigm, tackle the
assumptions.
Crucial: ask clever questions
If you challenge concepts, theories, assumptions, you ask new questions.
Quiz: why was the dog silent? Did anyone notice anything that night? He observes the dog. What is
so intelligent about Sherlock Holmes in comparison to Gregory relating to assumptions? What is the
assumption Gregory made? Gregory assumes the dog has nothing to do with it. The dog escapes his
field of attention. He is not conscious of this assumption. Holmes is asking who can have noticed
this? He (the dog) could have seen it. If dogs don’t bark, then the murderer is familiar to him. This
is the article, what is the interpretation, what is the concept? This is a technique. This is difficult
because most of our assumptions are tacit assumptions. Find the other historians’ assumptions.
The function of theory in practice
If you are preparing your research you start mostly from interpretations, try to tease the tacit
assumptions and the concept the historians uses. Theory 3 is more about teasing the underlying
assumptions.
Ginzburg
Most famous example of cultural history and in the form of micro history. Ginzburg wants to write
about the history of the normal man, because we don’t know a lot about the normal man, because
evidence is lacking. So he tries to find a method to remedy this -> microhistory. What about his
question? What does he want to know about the normal man in the 16th century? How everyday life
looked like and the cosmos of a miller. So daily life and he wants to understand what is their
worldview? If you want to write about the normal and their thinking, how do you find evidence?
His main evidence is the trial. He studies as the information basis the trial. Very cruel documents to
read because you see the torture in the evidence. He gets out of the trial the answers of the men and
from there he deduces the answers he has in his library. His main interpretation is this is the cosmos
of the miller, it consist of cheese and worms, not god and the angels, that was not a very smart thing
to do because he (the miller) was killed for it, but this is part of a very old underlying culture that
maybe existed for centuries, so this whole talk about cheese and worms existed maybe before
christianity. That’s his interpretation. It’s survived from pre-christian times. Important concept here:
microhistory and the method of deducing from very scarce utterances of a trial a complete cosmos
of a miller.
Ginzburg’s method
Clues. sporen. He thinks of the world as clues, small hidden traces from which you can deduce a
past world, reconstruct the past from those traces, like a detective. In the article he discusses three
examples of this method. Morelli (the art), Freud, and Sherlock Holmes. His basic interpretation is
that Freud, Morelli and Holmes use the same method, the method of the clues. The method allows
you to infer from various small traces larger interpretations.
Morelli example
Morelli was often asked “is this a genuine painting by Da Vinci?” Ginzburg underlines that it’s not
like he looks at the whole of the picture, Morelli looks at small traces, the ears. Da Vinci always has
a specific way of painting hair. Look at small things and from there you can deduce if it is an
original painting.
Holmes example
Holmes sees very small traces -> a dog, did he bark? -> a construction starts. In technical terms this
is abduction. You have surprising information. Then you observe. Maybe my hypothesis is true.
You find a trace, you think maybe what if … then you formulate a hypothesis. Then you say maybe
my hypothesis is true. You have to understand the logic.
,Abduction, induction, deduction
You find a coin. Maybe there is a roman camp here (that’s your hypothesis) -> abduction. Induction
is always from counting things -> maybe all roman camps have coins. Induction is about
summation. Case 1, case 2 , case 3. Deduction in all roman camps coins are present, this is a roman
camp so it must be that this is a roman camp. Induction is never certain. Abduction is maybe.. it
shows you are not absolutely certain, you have to check the hypothesis. Abduction is the logic of
questioning. Maybe there is a roman camp here. So find evidence there is. Maybe the dog didn’t
bark, maybe it was someone familiar. Abduction is the logic of hypothesis, central to historical
thinking. It’s also a way of questioning, it’s always based on presuppositions.
Whenever you make an abduction there is an underlying assumption. If you find a coin, you say
maybe there was a roman camp here. The underlying assumption is (from induction) in all roman
camps coins are present. From your inductions you create rules which you apply in abductions.
We call that the underlying generality. We have certain rules in mind which allow you to make all
these abductions. If you go the other way around every time you make an abduction, ask what is he
assuming in terms of a universal, in terms of all this, or all that. You will find a rule of influence
below the abduction. I have an article, if I know the question of the author, below every question
there must be an assumption stated in terms like, all roman camps contain coins. The general rule of
Sherlock Holmes is dogs don’t bark at those they are familiar with. In history we don’t have these
certainties. It’s always MOST roman camps have coins. It can always be something else, that’s why
your hypothesis is never certain, that’s why you have to test this hypothesis.
Abduction is an inference from a particular fact to an explanatory hypothesis. It can go wrong. You
find a pyramid in south America, “oh Egyptians are here.” But this is not true. The very presence of
pyramids is not an absolute certainty that Egyptians were in America. So that’s why you test your
hypothesis.
What historians do: On the basis of the available evidence, historians try to come to the best
explanation of historical event by asking ever smart questions based on plausible theories. Theories
are these general rules they apply. (like in most roman camps you find coins). Good theory is
therefore necessary for good historical writing. If you don’t apply theory, your article will become
very descriptive. This is a descriptive thesis.
Function of theory
You have an interpretation, go to the question, find the assumption. Then analyze it and then with
the standard critically evaluate. How strong is this assumption? How can we find underlying
assumptions? Reverse engineering. You have the end product, you start asking yourself how has
this article been constructed? This is the article with an interpretation, what was the question?
Answer-> question-> assumption. Look for the standpoint or claim and arguments. What connects
the claim and the argument is the assumption. Look for indicators. “My contention is..“ here the
author makes a claim. Then look for the arguments. If you find an argument start looking for the
assumptions.
Exercise 1: underlying assumption is Peter always rings the doorbell, or when the doorbell rings it’s
always peter.
Exercise 2: that the donated goods are valuable. If people donate to temples, it’s intended for the
gods. That the donations remain in place as a rule. (People don’t steal them).
Main claim Ginzburg: there is a worldview of these millers which goes back to pre-christian times.
From there work your way through the assumptions.
Exercise 3: apply the standards. Is the claim accurate, relevant, is the information the historian
deduces clear? How many perspectives are involved? Deep logic -> many assumptions. Many
layers in his claim. Broad logic-> many perspectives involved.
, When we talk about logic, when you find arguments which contradict each other you criticize.
Because the argument is inconsistent. Often the logic leading to the interpretation is not consistent.
When it comes to assumptions, most of the time historians don’t mention it.
Fallacies: When arguments go wrong
Know 15 of them. Based on the evidence, de B. killed babies. That is the claim, the interpretation.
What was the mistake? She is likely to be in the neighborhood of dying babies. Because she works
at the intensive care. Then you have a rule. Many babies die in intensive care so it is likely she is
present. It’s likely nurses are present in the vicinity of dying babies. The importance of asking
questions. The fallacy of the prosecutor is that the judges didn’t ask the right questions. They
refused to work form the general rule that babies tend to die in the intensive care when nurses are
present. They should have asked: what is the chance that babies die in intensive care? Answer is: it
is likely. Always formulate new hypotheses. Always distinguish between lovely and likely
hypotheses.
Critical thinking
Raise your own questions as historians and understand the questions of other historians. To detect,
analyze and critically evaluate. Smoke him out and bring him to justice.
Fallacies
When this goes wrong in a formal way it is called a fallacy. Why is this relevant for historiography?
Because our field is a field of discussion. When someone impedes the resolution of a discussion that
is called a fallacy. Recognize them and tackle them. Always think of an example whenever you
have a concept. Some examples:
2. Affirming the consequence: when it rains the streets are wet, so it rains. But when the streets are
wet it has not necessarily rained.
4. False dilemma: was Napoleon a democrat or a tyrant?
8. Ad consequentiam: this is not true because if it were true it would lead to bad consequences:
climate debate, it should not be true because the consequence would be that we would need to find
expensive energy sources.
Additional fallacy of the straw man: Puttings words in your opponent’s mouth.
How can you prevent misquoting a historian? Use exact quotes.
