Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought [Perfect Paperback]

David Hackett Fischer (Author)

Book Description

Release date: December 30, 1970 | ISBN-10: 0060904984 | ISBN-13: 978-0061315459 | Edition: 1st

"If one laughs when David Hackett Fischer sits down to play, one will stay to cheer. His book must be read three times: the first in anger, the srcond in laughter, the third in respect....The wisdom is expressed with a certin ruthlessness. Scarcly a major historian escapes unscathed. Ten thousand members of the AmericanHistorical Association will rush to the index and breathe a little easier to find their names absent.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"An important book...in terms of helping an entire generation of scholars who profess to have lost confidence in being historians." -- --New York Times Book Review

Product Details

• Perfect Paperback: 338 pages
• Publisher: Harper & Row, Publishers; 1st edition (December 30, 1970)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0060904984
• ISBN-13: 978-0061315459
• ASIN: 0061315451
• Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.3 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (28 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #111,092 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #81 in Books > History > Historical Study & Educational Resources > Historiography
  • #90 in Books > History > Historical Study & Educational Resources > Reference

More About the Author

David Hackett Fischer is University Professor and Warren Professor of History at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. The recipient of many prizes and awards for his teaching and writing, he is the author of numerous books, including Washington's Crossing, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in history.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

87 of 90 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Superb analysis September 29, 2002

By magellan HALL OF FAMETOP 1000 REVIEWER

Format:Perfect Paperback

Fischer presents a detailed and trenchant look at the problems of historical explanation in this fine book. It is certainly one of the best history books I've ever read, although it's not a history book per se, since it's really a critique of the different explanations historians use. Fischer discusses probably about a hundred or more of these, so you probably won't be able to remember them all, but if nothing else, you'll be more alert to the more common and egregious types of historical errors, and overall, the book is a useful analysis and reminder of the problems and difficulties of writing history. In that regard, it's still a very interesting and worthwhile book.

Some of the fallacies I already knew from philosophy, such as the pathetic fallacy, the fallacy of composition, the post hoc fallacy, and so on, which are already well known. But then there are plenty of others with more abstruse names, such as the "the fallacy of the hypostatized proof." My one complaint enters here, since Fischer would have benefited from a knowledge of logic and philosophy, since he sometimes gives names to fallacies that are well known in logic and philosophy by a different name.

But overall, this is one of the best books on the methods and philosophy of history I've read, and it should probably be required reading for every student of history and professional historian alike.

41 of 42 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars An Indispensable Book for the Serious Writer May 3, 2000

By Peter D. Kinder

Format:Perfect Paperback

I've read this book cover to cover once and dipped into it on average once a month over the ten years since I first found it. It sits on my shelf with my other "correctives", such as Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". Fischer makes the same points about rhetoric as Orwell at greater length and with far more wit. But, Orwell is the better writer.

Yes, as one reviewer says, Fischer rants a bit, but amusingly and with dead-on quotations from his victims. One will think twice about the errors Fischer cites, if for no other reason than to avoid Fischer's next edition.

Fischer is quite even handed. The first felon he cites was a professor of mine -- and Fischer's -- as an undergraduate. A more generous critic and historian -- and human being -- one won't find. But there he is.

I cannot think of a better gift for anyone who takes persuasive prose seriously. No writer should be without it.

44 of 47 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Critical Analysis December 19, 2003

By Brandon Colas

Format:Hardcover

David Hackett Fischer's thesis is that there is a tacit and analyzable logic of historical thought and that historians can improve their historical thinking by applying this logic to their work. Historians' Fallacies is a successful attempt to make history a discipline better governed by reason. Fischer notes that history is mainly a problem-solving discipline; the historian asks pertinent questions and then develops a logical paradigm to answer them. He acknowledges that history will never be an exact science but it is his goal, by a careful examination of common historical fallacies, to develop a type of logic. Method is necessary in history, and logic makes a method more rigorous and useful. The historian must follow rules to write good, "scientific," history.

Fischer reveals his ultimate goal in his conclusion. He discusses the goals of history and makes an eloquent apology for the historian. He astutely notes that social scientists have never found a justification for history, making illogical arguments to justify their interest in the past. Calling history "fun," saying that history should be studied because it "is there," and stating "everyone needs to know facts" are three poor reasons for a defense of history. Likewise, claiming history provides a creative outlet and that it could prove useful for the future are spurious speculations, at best.

Fischer's apology of history explains that as history becomes more logical, it becomes more useful to society. History can clarify the contexts of contemporary social problems and can help with forecasting, allowing us to discuss future issues before they arrive. History offers theoretical knowledge, helping social scientists understand past conditions that best brought, say, stability and peace.... A recognition of these conditions could help calm today's times. History helps people understand who they are, and by giving them an identity, frees them from the tyranny of the short-sighted present. Most importantly, history helps people conceptualize today's problems in today's terms. Effective solutions to problems in the past could well prove disastrous if applied to similar problems today, and an understanding of history lessens this threat. Logical history is necessary to useful history; the two are inseparable.

Fischer's self-proclaimed reason for writing this book was the lack of logical analysis in history. He believes that many historians hold a bizarre hatred towards logic, known as "misology." Despite this anti-intellectual attitude by historians, the use of history as an academic discipline and a social science demands a logical and scientific approach. The analytical philosophy of history is helpful for developing historical thought, but insufficient to actually create the logic that historians need. Fischer takes that next step in his book.

Fischer explains his thesis by taking the reader through the three major steps of a historian's method: inquiry, explanation, and argument. Inquiry begins every legitimate historical endeavor. Thus, the historian must seek to ask questions in the right way, while carefully verifying significant facts. The field of explanation consists of generalizations, narration, causation, motivation, composition, and false analogy. Finally, within the field of argument, there are fallacies of semantical distortion and fallacies of substantive distraction. In each category he discusses various fallacies, often in great detail. His book discusses over one hundred different logical fallacies, and he does not discriminate among giving specific examples from a vast variety of works. These specific examples make logical ideas that seem abstract at first easy to understand. At the end of each chapter, Fischer follows the logical messes by a clean-up attempt where he briefly writes suggestions towards methods that are more logical than those of the historians he has attacked.

A narrow thesis binds the book together, but history is not lacking in poor historians, so the examples come from all of Western history, keeping the reader involved. Fischer's prose is crisp and he tends to throw in delightful phrases to keep the tone light, such as, "a rathole of metaphysical speculation," or a "literary monstrosity." His use of specific and amusing examples prevent the vast number of logical terms from becoming tedious. No holds are barred: Fischer holds high standards for the historian-and rightly so, judging from his presuppositions-and he expects history to be logical and done in a correct manner. This book probably made him few friends, for he attacks contemporaries in his field with the same vigor that he attacks the virulent racist of ages past.

Fisher's major contribution, however, does not come from his deconstruction of others' historical analyses, though this is the majority of the book. At the end of each chapter, he includes concise summaries that offer advice to the historian wanting to avoid the previous logical fallacies. His deconstruction is vital to actually view bad history in progress. But his constructive suggestions are excellent for those who would write good history. His summaries are excellent in understanding exactly what he wants from a logical historical thought. Historians who consciously use his positive suggestions, while avoiding the logical fallacies he mentions will find themselves on the right track to creating works with significance. A sound and logical structure is necessary is history. Too many problems occurred in the past because of a misconstrued construction of previous events, and Fischer takes a giant step towards limiting the same mistakes. Read more ›

68 of 81 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Fischer Gave Name to All the Fallacies July 21, 2004

By Omer Belsky VINE™ VOICE

Format:Perfect Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

...and then some

The study of history carries with it a load of fascinating philosophical and epistemological questions. Beyond such generalities such as "what is the nature of truth?", historians have to decide which facts are relevant to the case they are studying, what are causes in history, and how to make a narrative, a book or a mathematical model, that will capture something significant of the world.

All of these are interesting questions, but except peripherally, David Hackett Fischer doesn't discuss them. Rather, Fischer tries to track down specific fallacies that historians commit, and spell them out, apparently in order to help other scholars avoid them.

"Historians' Fallacies" is basically a collection and a catalogue of errors, some well known ones, such as "the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc" (following, therefore caused by, p. 166) or "the pathetic fallacy" (ascribing animate behavior to inanimate objects, pp. 190-193) and some as obscure as "the fallacy of indiscriminate pluralism" (enumerating multiple causes without discrimination, pp. 175-177).

There are at least three commendable aspects to Fischer's study. First, Fischer is a fine writer, with remarkable turns of phrases: "Sir Lewis [Namier] was no enemy of chosenness in either facts or people. He was, indeed, a committed Zionist in both respects." (p. 69).

Another is Fischer's willingness to name names. Too many critics prefer uses such as "many writers", etc, but although Fischer does occasionally shies away (such as in his discussion of ad hominem attacks pp.290-293), he's generally willing to openly criticize some leading historians and intellectuals. Nor does Fischer satisfy himself with attacking such usual suspects as Robert Fogel, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.... and Arnold Toynbee; Everyone who has any interest at all in American intellectual history of the 20th century will find at least some of his or hers heroes under fire. Historians from Charles Beard to E.P. Thompson, from economist Kenneth Boulding (who was the mentor of one of my college professors) to Henry Kissinger. My favorite is the critique of Southern historian C. Vann Woodward:

"Through two revisions, the author has held his ground with a tenacity worthy of a better cause. The result is another fallacy - the overwhelming exception. We are now told that the interpretation applies to all Southern institutions except churches, schools, militia, hotels, restaurants, public buildings, jails, hospitals, asylums, gardens, and the New Orleans Opera House" (p. 149 n).

A third highpoint of the book is that it sometimes hits the bull's eye. Under "the fallacy of semantical questions", Fischer criticizes historians who focus on labels instead of content such as the 'prolonged dispute among American colonial historians over the question "Was the political structure of seventeenth-century America 'democratic' or 'Aristocratic'?"' (p.22). If you've never read studies who committed the same offence, you will not recognize the immense desire to strangle a historian who does.

But in the attempt to describe the errors of Historians, Fischer falls to the same trap that my Business courses in college fell into - they tried to make laws and regularities of something that if far too context dependant for that. So almost all the time, what you've got is specific instances of erring historians, with fallacies which say something like "don't exaggerate", "do careful research" and "use sound judgment".

When it comes to generalize, to give positive insight as how to go on a historian's business, Fischer's advice is invariably trivial, true-but-obvious. "Motives are usually pluralistic in both their number and their nature. Abraham Maslow writes, 'typically an act has more than one motive'. To this, one might add that it has motives of more than one kind." Oh really? (p. 214)

Maybe some of my criticism of Fischer's book is (as he might have said) anachronistic. Fischer objects to unnecessary jargon: "Ordinary everyday words like "simple" are replaced by monstrosities such as "simplistic" without any refinement of meaning" (p.285). Today, I doubt anyone would write about a simple solution while meaning a simplistic one, but maybe in the 1960s the distinction was not as clear.

Within the point by point critiques of Historians' errors, there seems to be an overarching thesis that remains implicit, but that guides Fischer's thought process: the inevitability of history, or the assumption that events are caused by the forces of history, rather then the actions of individuals.

Fischer calls the "fallacy of responsibility as cause", confusing the problem of agency with that of ethics (pp.182-183). If I understand him correctly, he seems to argue that individual leaders are not responsible to wide scale events: "The cause of the failure of Reconstruction race policy muse surely be sought in general phenomena for which no free and responsible human agent can be held to blame" (Ibid.). Is Fischer really saying that there was nothing that, say, Andrew Johnson or Grant could've done better? Or that it wouldn't have mattered? If he does, then he robs human beings of their abilities to change the future. That's a highly controversial (and clearly metaphysical) position, and one that clashes with his call for using history as a way to teach people rationality (pp. 316-318).

Despite its frequent wit and occasional insights, Fischer's book does not quite illuminate a path for other historians to follow. I don't think we're any closer to a logic of historical thought than we were before. Read more ›