Is History True? Essay

historic theories are just like any theory are subject to controversy among divers(prenominal) populations and groups. deuce of the most imminent historians, Oscar Handlin and William McNeil gave interesting viewpoints backed up by strong points. In Taking Sides strike Views on disputed Issues in American memoir, Volume II, gave an interesting overview of how these two elite historians are able-bodied to state their points so clearly. As highly influenced as their works are which eachowed me to see from within their interior window I find myself agreeing much with Handlins perspective.According to Oscar Handlin from Truth in account statement (1979), gave a startling concept of how historical truth is establish on the obvious evidences those that we can understand and interpret. Handlin gave implicit indications that account statement does ring truth due to the fact that our current evidence of the past should be bagd on thoughtful analysis and non just necessary bas ed on numerical or statistical evidence as those obtained by scientific measures.Oscar Handling says that evidence is chronological, evidence is vocabulary, and evidence is context. circumstance is something of common ground for all historians despite the difference in their interpretation and that scientific methods must be used to distinguish between fact and legal opinions. McNeil on the other hand, get to a different opinion on this matter. McNeil speculates that historical truth is not influence by the desires or vision of the viewer, but is really solid scientific evidence itself.McNeils essay, Truth, Myth, and History, gave an emphasis on the falsehood of historical truth, and besides highlights the idea that it remove no scientific methodology behind it, making it nothing but judgments, choices, and interpretative opinions. McNeil believe that all the evidence becomes nothing but a type of collection, almost like in literature for the reader to understand and interpret but does not give a credible centre or intelligibility to the record 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 one interprets the material depending on their circumstance and environment. Almost like a self-fulfilled portent of the human mind and not actual facts. He further speculates that every culture has its own edition of truth truth somewhat its own culture as well as the truth about other cultures.Truth to one person may not be truth to another. He by and by concludes that all these outside forces of culture, background, relationships, and society affect the level 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 validating. In my ana lysis of the work of these two owing(p) viewpoints, I must admit 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 knowledge upon scientific evidence has a bit of hypocritical ring to it. It is in like manner important to point out that current historical findings are not found according to historical viewpoints alone, but is a mixture of scientific applied science and many experts from all categorical discipline that rove up our current knowledge of history as well.Just because we cant prove something doesnt mean it does not exist 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 nece ssary label it as untrue. For instance, psychology 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 previous truth is indeed false.This gave me reasons to believe that it is better to choose on a flexible approach when it comes to historical evidence. In defense of Handlings viewpoint, historians too 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 off course, as important as the truth in any discipline. History is based on facts derived from the past and thus provides a solid foundation on the truth of the data obtained.Historians are able to obtain the historical information from different locations and find sources of evidence or those star(p) to evidence. The truth in history is thus, built on the foundation 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 analyze and validate historical events, evidence, and facts as much as scientists have the skills and advanced technology to analyze scientific evidence.Therefore, Hardings theory is more accepting 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.