Submit your order instructions

Get essay writer assigned

Receive your completed paper

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: "Do not ignore contradictory evidence"?

This theory of knowledge sample essay examines the ethical obligation of historians and human scientists to engage with contradictory evidence, presenting a clear structure with distinct sections on both perspectives. The introduction defines key terms and establishes a knowledge question, while the body explores claims and counterclaims using examples from history and human sciences. The essay writer opted to use scholarly sources to support their arguments, ensuring the credibility of the claims made and adhering to academic standards. This essay example also follows APA formatting with proper citations and references, providing clarity and academic rigor. It is well-organized, with smooth transitions between sections, and offers a balanced exploration of the topic.

November 24, 2024

* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: "Do

not ignore contradictory evidence"? Discuss with reference to history and the human

sciences.

Institution

Student’s Name

Course Title

Instructor’s Name

Date of Submission

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: "Do not

ignore contradictory evidence"? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Contradictory evidence challenges the foundations of knowledge, prompting us to

question the validity of established narratives and the processes through which they are

constructed. In disciplines like history and the human sciences, knowledge emerges from the

careful selection, interpretation, and synthesis of evidence. But this raises an ethical dilemma

when, for instance, new evidence challenges dominant paradigms, raising questions of how such

evidence should be dealt with. This thus begs the question: To what extent do historians and

human scientists have an ethical obligation to consider evidence that contradicts their views?

First, to investigate this question properly, one has to define the major terms of that statement.

Contradictory evidence in this context is information that undermines the established paradigm

or runs contrary to very strongly held beliefs. An ethical obligation, in this case, is a moral

responsibility hinged on principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability. This essay will

argue that historians and human scientists are ethically committed to paying attention to evidence

that contradicts their assumptions since it is through this approach that integrity in their research

work is upheld and gives more validity to their findings.

History

Historians have an ethical obligation to interrogate contradictory evidence since it makes

the analysis of the past more comprehensive and accurate than if they continue to reinforce bias.

Historiographical work involves skeptical reasoning and the acceptance that all history is

tentative and open to further amendment. Historical narratives are never cast in stone either.

They move, for instance, where new evidence prevails or where evidence is reanalyzed in the

light of novel perspectives. Confronting contradictory evidence enables historians to remain

faithful to their role as detached investigators, dedicated to crafting accounts that are dynamic

and representative of the complexities of the past (Kipping, 2013). An example that can be used

to illustrate this claim is the debate surrounding Christopher Columbus’ legacy. The traditional

story of Columbus as a kind of hero in the "discovery" of the Americas had its place in Western

history. However, over time, this view has gradually been challenged by alternative views from

the indigenous perspective, such as oral histories and newly discovered documents that reveal a

darker side of Columbus's voyages. These sources bring to light violence, forced labor, and

devastating diseases that Columbus and his men brought to native populations, which became the

cause of the widespread destruction of indigenous cultures and societies (Nunn & Qian, 2020).

Historians have re-examined this evidence to demythologize Columbus as an exploring pioneer

and have recognized the profoundly negative consequences of his arrival for native communities.

The adoption of a different perspective highlights the significance of the examination of

contradictory evidence as it often results in a better and more accurate understanding of past

events. Therefore, this example illustrates that the historian has an ethical commitment to

contradictory evidence, hence making it dynamic and reflective of the full complexities of

history.

However, historians are not always under the ethical compulsion to consider

contradictory evidence when such evidence is based on no more than speculation or is otherwise

unsupported by sufficient credibility. Evidence to support a particular historical interpretation

must be reliable and stand up to heavy standards of source criticism. Not all types of

contradictory evidence are equal in value, some sources may be biased, hearsay, or incomplete in

their information, rendering them unreliable to include within the historical narrative. Historians

should grant primacy to evidence that has received appropriate academic vetting and which

provides a substantial contribution to knowledge about the past. Where contradictory evidence

cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt or has not received proper scholarly vetting, it is

justified for historians to leave it out in defense of the veracity and integrity of their work. One

such case is the "Hitler Diaries" of the 1980s. The documents had taken the form of authentic

diaries written by Adolf Hitler. These papers were presented to the German magazine Stern back

in 1983. It was claimed that they offered fresh insights into Hitler's thinking on World War II and

his style of command. However, historians and forensic experts who studied the material closely

found that the diaries were actually forged (Kutzner, 2024). Anachronistic ink, unmatched paper

composition, and varying handwriting all hinted that the diaries were forgeries. These quickly set

the historians off guard to dismiss them as unreliable and refuse to work with them as verifiable

evidence. This example thus illustrates the ways in which historians are not necessarily obligated

on ethical grounds to consider contradictory evidence when such evidence fails to meet standards

provided by academia or is otherwise unreliable. The apparently contradictory historical records,

the Hitler Diaries, were excluded because they did not pass under rigorous standards of

reliability and scholarly scrutiny. As history is never absolute, scholars in this field of study

nonetheless have a moral commitment to investigating any new contradictory evidence that

comes forward as a means of determining whether such additional data supports or refutes the

paradigm at issue.

Human Sciences

Human scientists are obligated, on ethical grounds, to examine or analyze contradictory

evidence in the field because such a process assures that their findings are an approximation of

truth and are reliable. In the human sciences, theories and models are typically based on

complex, dynamic variables that may change over time or across different conditions. These

models, in turn, are tested by contradictory evidence, thus compelling human scientists to review

their assumptions and sharpen their conclusions. Anything less than this could introduce bias or

incorrect conclusions, undermining the scientific process altogether. By accounting for

contradictory evidence, human scientists prove their commitment to truth and objectivity; such a

commitment keeps the work rigorous, transparent, and reflective of the complexities involved in

studying human behavior. A very apt example for explaining the above statement is the paradigm

shift in psychological studies of the concept of intelligence during the 20th century's second half.

Early theories of psychology essentially framed intelligence as a product of genes and were all

but static; IQ tests measured cognitive ability. These assumptions were soon confronted by

growing contradictory evidence that factors such as socioeconomic background and education

greatly influenced cognitive development (Sauce & Matzel, 2019). This evidence showed that in

the earlier models, scientists had not taken into consideration a wide range of influences on

intelligence. The engagement of psychologists with this disconfirming evidence allowed the

refinement of their insights towards a more embracing perspective, one that was inclusive of

both the genetic and environmental complex interplay. This shift in direction illustrates the

ethical obligation of experts in this field to engage with contradictory evidence, enabling them to

refine their theories so as to reflect, as far as possible, the full richness of human behavior.

On the contrary, another way of looking at it is to state that human scientists may not

necessarily have an ethical duty to engage with contradictory evidence in certain cases when

such evidence obviously destroys the coherence and integrity of established theoretical

frameworks. The human sciences are often based upon a model or theory that has become

well-supported over time through extensive empirical testing. Sometimes, this evidence could be

based on anomalies or cases that do not fit into the wider, established trends of human behavior.

Engagement with such evidence, when it is contradictory, serves only to mislead, reduce the

theoretical coherence of the subject, and may lead to misinterpretation. A case that exemplifies

the truth of this statement is how the scientific community originally rejected Sigmund Freud's

theories on psychoanalysis. Though Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind and repressed

memories were groundbreaking, later studies, especially from cognitive psychology and

neurobiology, refuted his hypotheses of psychoanalysis (Gundersen, 2022). The emergence of

behaviorism, which was focused on observable behaviors rather than internal psychological

factors, challenged Freud's hypothesis. Nevertheless, most psychoanalysts still supported Freud's

framework on the basis that the contradictory evidence was founded on methods of research

incompatible with psychoanalysis, such as a focus solely on behavior. Psychoanalysts believed

that in this particular instance, the consideration of contradictory evidence would dismantle the

coherence of their established framework. This example illustrates how, in human sciences,

certain contradictory evidence, especially when it comes from outside established theoretical

boundaries, is set aside if it does not make a significant challenge to the core principles that a

field rests upon.

Conclusion

For both historians and human scientists, it is an ethical duty to take into consideration

contradictory evidence in order to maintain the integrity of their works and to further a more

subtle and accurate understanding. For example, the reassessment of Columbus' role in the

Americas, based on the perspective of indigenous peoples, has granted a balanced view of his

impact on the New World. Likewise, in the human sciences, evidence contradicting the theories

on intelligence has led psychologists to reconsider and enhance their models to include both the

genetic and the environmental components. Yet, this commitment is not an absolute one: within

the "Hitler Diaries," for example, historians ruled out whatever was found not to be credible, and

psychoanalysts ruled out Freud's theory of contradictory evidence that comes from behavioral

concepts that would destroy their system altogether. The ethical commitment to contradictory

evidence in this regard for both fields, therefore, needs to consider reliability and relevance.

While the notion of openness to new evidence must be embraced broadly among experts, the

credibility and applicability of that evidence need to be cross-checked in order not to distort or

confuse the knowledge at hand.

References

Gundersen, S. (2022). Mechanisms and fundamental principles in Freudian explanations. The

Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 45(2), 87-95.

Kipping, M. (2013). Analyzing and Interpreting Historical Sources: A Basic Methodology. In M.

Bucheli, & R. D. Wadhwani, Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (pp.

305-329). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kutzner, M. (2024). The Institute for Contemporary History and the Fake Hitler Diaries Affair,

1982–83. German Yearbook of Contemporary History.

Nunn, N., & Qian, N. (2020). The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas.

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 163-188.

Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2019). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability

coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 26-34.

November 24, 2024

24/7 custom essay writing by real academic writers

WPH

Academic level:

High school

Type of paper:

IB ToK Essay

Discipline:

History and human sciences

Citation:

APA

Pages:

6 (1600 words)