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.
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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)
* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.
