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.
