Information And Bias In History
As Winston Churchill had once said, “History is written by the victors”. However, is it possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection? Knowledge in history is frequently, if not always, altered due to the historian’s biased selectivity. Biasing is a natural occurrence amongst humans, and we bias all the information we obtain when we write, read, analyze, or translate an article. It is possible however to avoid bias. Actively having discussions with a diverse group of people, and listening to what they have to say, for example, can avoid confirmation bias. Having this in mind, is biased information still valid to obtain usable information?
Knowledge, in history, is primarily obtained through historical records. However, due to the fact that there is only limited information, and they are all biased, we must validate and analyze the documents, thus biasing the report not only by the victor, but also by the historian. Having altered the information twice could lead to massive changes, therefore giving us a more personalized point of view on the event. Nonetheless, the biased information leads us closer to obtaining the truth, as knowledge is a compilation of biased information put together.
Bias and selectivity in knowledge, however, could be helpful to historians, since it gives them the …show more content…
To start with, it completely disregards all opposition to their main argument, thus making it more unreliable. It is commonly one-sided, since there is no counterclaim throughout the text whatsoever. The argument will also be untrustworthy, since it will be considered “bad” bias. Selectivity and bias may come to your advantage, but not if you don’t express the reader’s emotion as well, since their emotion is what is utilized to capture their attention. Once you create counterclaims, the reader feels they have a “right of speech” throughout the literature, causing them to put more interest into
Knowledge, in history, is primarily obtained through historical records. However, due to the fact that there is only limited information, and they are all biased, we must validate and analyze the documents, thus biasing the report not only by the victor, but also by the historian. Having altered the information twice could lead to massive changes, therefore giving us a more personalized point of view on the event. Nonetheless, the biased information leads us closer to obtaining the truth, as knowledge is a compilation of biased information put together.
Bias and selectivity in knowledge, however, could be helpful to historians, since it gives them the …show more content…
To start with, it completely disregards all opposition to their main argument, thus making it more unreliable. It is commonly one-sided, since there is no counterclaim throughout the text whatsoever. The argument will also be untrustworthy, since it will be considered “bad” bias. Selectivity and bias may come to your advantage, but not if you don’t express the reader’s emotion as well, since their emotion is what is utilized to capture their attention. Once you create counterclaims, the reader feels they have a “right of speech” throughout the literature, causing them to put more interest into