Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History by Carl R. Trueman

Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History Reviews

• 
  Aimee Byrd

  Did you ever read a book on sanctification or the Christian life and become awakened to a whole new host of sins that you didn’t even know you were committing? Well, this book had that same effect on me with historical misdemeanors. As Trueman was introducing fallacies such as anachronism or reification, I had that sinking feeling that you get when you come home from a social event worried that you said the wrong thing. I was trying to do a rewinding of my words, pretty sure that somewhere along the line I had committed these offenses in some form.
  
  I picked up this book because I wanted a Carl Trueman answer to the all too common remark I hear that history can’t really be known. The reasoning goes that no one writes unbiased from their own prejudice and worldviews. And so they say that the strongest and most powerful get to write history. It’s never neutral. On top of that, there’s the whole postmodern deconstruction that we can’t truly know anything. When you get these sort of comments, the conversation usually ends because you are now made to feel that nothing you say has any weight.
  
  I got so much more than an answer to my question. Along with demonstrating that non-neutrality doesn’t wipe away objectivity and valid evidence, this book gives the reader tools to discern the validity of a claim on their own, all the while giving a history lesson. Trueman does this by educating the reader on how to work the case of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies abound everywhere from the claim that Elvis is really alive and working in your local grocery store, to Holocaust denial. Trueman tackles both, but uses the Elvis conspiracy as more of a colorful example of ridiculousness while taking the Holocaust deniers much more seriously. He shows that Holocaust Denial operates the same as the other conspiracy theories: “it creates doubts in the overall narrative by highlighting myriad inconsistencies or errors in the minor details of the evidence, as if the cumulative effect of such is sufficient to overthrow the evidence as a whole” (39).
  
  The reader is then taught some history detective strategies. Through examining the claims of the Holocaust deniers, Truman teaches about the aesthetic fallacy, the fallible nature of eye-witness testimony, discerning scientific standards, and how to make a positive case interpreting the evidence through corroboration and verification. It is very informative and I have a whole new respect for the discipline of history.
  
  In the next chapter we learn about Marxism. Well, at least this is the example given when we take a philosophy and blow it up to be our interpretive grid. This chapter calls for modesty. It challenges the historian to do some self-examining on their own ideological commitments that color the way they interpret evidence and construct their historical narrative. I love how Truman teaches these points while also teaching history. He equips the reader with a skill for asking good questions while examining their own presuppositions.
  
  Trueman compares learning about the past to visiting a foreign county. The historian needs to be careful not to impose their own culture and it its advancements in thoughts and philosophies onto the ones of they are researching. The big takeaway here is that “context is crucial to meaning,” and that “ideas enjoy no privileged status in comparison with other historical actions” (140).
  
  And then we are introduced to a “fistful of fallacies.” As a writer, I found the historical toolbox of the first three chapters to be a valuable asset. Chapter Four was like the arsenal he had been keeping in the trunk for the blitz attack. This book isn’t just for the aspiring historian, it’s for truth seekers and truth tellers. In just 180 pages, you will be more self-aware of your own mistakes in remembering the past, as well as equipped to discern other’s claims.
  
  “We tend, if you like, always to think of ourselves as the Last Men, and our times as the End of Time” (172). Trueman leaves the reader with a choice:
  
  We can ignore history, and thus doom ourselves to understanding our own small world as reflecting nature, just the way things are, and by so doing doom ourselves to be enslaved to the forces around us that remain unseen but which nonetheless exert a powerful pressure on us. Or we can study history, and in so doing, simultaneously relativize ourselves and our times and, ironically, somewhat liberate ourselves in such a way that we understand more of our world and how we fit into it. Only the man who knows the forces that shape the way he thinks is capable of resisting how those forces; and history is a great help in identifying and exposing such hidden things” (174).
  With all the hard work of research and discernment, history is a worthy discipline, and a very interesting one at that. Who doesn’t like a good story? Truman not only motivates the reader, but turns them into their own truth detective. There’s so much more to the book that I can’t cover in this small review. I commend it to anyone interested in the search for truth.
• 
  Zack

  I wish that I had read this years ago when I was working on papers and theses in History as an undergrad at Temple University. This would have been immensely helpful!
  Despite some rhetorical redundancy (a con outweighed by the pro of rhetorical amusement), the writing is clear, well organized, and engaging. I imagine that I will refer back to this little book as I begin tackling more serious historical writing in the coming weeks, months, and years.
  This book will inspire a love of rigorous historical research, reading, and writing in thoughtful readers (especially, but not exclusively, of the Christian variety).
• 
  Elizabeth

  Over the past year, I have become increasingly aware of and interested in the need to exercise discernment in the arena of history studies. (This is largely due to following Simonetta Carr's blog which chronicles "The making of Christian biographies for young readers." It has been a lot of fun to "watch" her piece together the truth of history. I am grateful for her willingness to share her journey and for the example that she sets.) As a result, I was excited to learn that I would have the opportunity to review Histories and Fallacies: The Problems Faced in the Writing of History by Carl R. Trueman. I must confess at the outset of this review that I am incredibly "out of my league" with this particular title. I realized very quickly that my vocabulary is extremely narrow and that I am woefully lacking in my knowledge of basic history (and current events pertaining to said history). However, in spite of my limitations, I was able to glean a good deal from this book.
  
  The Introduction serves as a road map of sorts ad is a very good one at that. In Chapter 1, Trueman discusses the difference between neutrality and objectivity. While no historian will be neutral in his/her retelling of the past, there will be verifiable facts, evidence, etc. by which one may ascertain what actually occurred. Trueman walks through some of the claims of those who deny the Holocaust in order to bring to light some of the basic strategies of good (and bad) historical method.
  
  Trueman then moves to a discussion of interpretive frameworks in Chapter 2. Call it what you will: worldview, presuppositions, ideological commitments, beliefs; we all have them, and they drastically influence how we interpret the truth, including the truth about the past. Truman chooses to demonstrate the strengths and limitations of interpretive schemes by evaluating Marxism.
  
  Chapter 3 addresses the problem of anachronism. This was a new term for me and really made me feel like I was back in college with a bunch of intellectuals...and a bit out of my league. However, anachronism isn't nearly as complex as it sounds; it merely refers to the fact that the historian is in the present while addressing questions to the past. This time gap creates a whole host of problems similar to a tourist visiting a foreign country. Trueman highlights many of these problems and says, "Simply to be aware of the potential problem is a crucial move toward avoiding it" (pg. 115). This chapter, like the ones that go before it, is full of helpful reminders including the need to be modest in the conclusions one draws (pg. 140).
  
  Finally, Chapter 4 is a treatment of various issues to which historians can be prone and of which they ought to be aware (oversimplification, generalization, poor framing of questions, etc.). Once again, Trueman makes statements that are pertinent to all of life. Fox example, he spends time relaying the importance of asking the right questions.
  
  "...the framing of a question can shape the answer" (pg 162).
  "...often, questions are clearly driven by particular ideological commitments that arguably lead to distorted answers" (pg. 163).
  
  In layman's terms, we tend to ask loaded questions.
  
  Mr. Trueman rightfully acknowledges that he has "barely scratched the surface of what it means to write history" (pg. 169). While I would have liked to have seen greater depth in certain aspects, especially with regard to how a Biblical worldview affects ones' study of history (as opposed to merely focusing on Marxism), I believe Mr. Trueman gives his reader a great start. In my case, he has successfully fulfilled his objective "to ignite that interest [in understanding the past] in others, to guide them away from dead ends and methodological mistakes to fruitful and creative avenues of approach, and to help in some small way the next generation of those who wish to make history come alive for future generations" (pg 181).
  
  In conclusion, Histories and Fallacies is a book I would loved to have understood before or during my college years. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to read and process the material now and look forward to using the knowledge that I have gleaned to be a more discerning reader across multiple disciplines. I trust many others will greatly benefit from it as well.
  
  *Many thanks to Crossway for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinion!
• 
  Sean McGowan

  Very good book on historiography. It is important to understand how to actually do history. Trueman provides excellent principles to interpret history by, as well as various fallacies to avoid. His examples and "case studies" were also very helpful. I would highly recommend this book to anyone thinking of, or currently working toward, becoming a professional historian.
• 
  Michael Wilson

  Trueman is a funny guy. Brought up great points and helped me to become more conscious of my own thinking regarding the past and historical evidence.
• 
  Andrew Pendleton

  Insightful and eye-opening. Recommend especially for anyone who enjoys history. Uses many fascinating examples that drive home his points.
  
  “Every historian makes mistakes; the important thing is to gain an understanding of why they are mistakes. Once that is done, they become much easier to avoid in the future.”
  
  “Only the man who knows the forces that shape the way he thinks is capable of resisting those forces; and history is a great help in identifying and exposing such hidden things.”
• 
  Wendelin St Clair

  He does write fluently, but the whole thing was rather misshappen in its emphasis. Especially given it's supposedly written by and for Evangelical Christians. It's strange how this was written by a Christian theologian, published by a Christian (or at least it used to be) publisher, with plaudits from other theologians on the back, and yet Trueman wrote as if he thought he was addressing himself primarily to a mainstream secular audience, which, sorry mate, the numbers on this here GoodReads page indicate you were not.
  
  A bizarrely disproportionate pagespace was devoted to Holocaust Revisionism, or Holocaust Denial, as he calls it, with as odious and triumphalist a vindication of victor's history as you can find anywhere. Talk about kicking a downed man, not to mention beating a dead horse. It is not only our right but our duty as freethinking individuals to be sceptical of official narratives, and "histories" that are enforced at gunpoint, especially when those narratives are used in the service of evil agendas in the present--and if you do not think the destruction of European civilisation and dispossession of European peoples is evil, you either don't know what evil (or good) is, or have self-consciously embraced evil.
  
  On the Deniers:
  

  "He could be arguing on behalf of the people who think the moon is made of cream cheese or who think that Elvis is Alfie and well and working in a supermarket in Michigan"

  
  I'm sorry, please tell me which countries have made it illegal to say the moon is made of cheese or that Elvis is alive? Exactly how many people are currently in prison for espousing those beliefs? And who genuinely believes the moon is made of cheese, anyway? Ironically, Trueman is engaged in the same rhetorical diversion he is here condemning.
  
  I was also surprised (though maybe I should not have been, given who is on the cover) at how much space was devoted to Marxism, which is a dying paradigm as far as history is concerned--the old economic kind having been replaced by the new cultural strain, which has only one question to ask of any historical event, era or culture: how did it affect Minorities™? Just as in English and other disciplines, most modern academic historians have abandoned history per se--i.e. an attempt to enhance our understanding of history, in favour of going down ever more irrelevant and arcane rabbit holes of what the experience of Black Demiqueer Transfeminine Sex Workers of Colour was in 1710s Verona.
  
  His attitude to Bolshevik historiography, a comprehensively and fractally wrong (not to mention pernicious and ultimately murderous) dogma that has no currency outside the hermetic circles of the oikophobic elite, seems rather excessively polite and accommodating, which is especially revealing in light of how he previously refused to acknowledge holocaust revisionists as real historians, apparently on methodological grounds, but in fact on purely ideological grounds. But he is quite willing to treat Marxism as a legitimate, even valuable, school of historiography. Needless to say, he would not do the same with Fascism or "Nazism".
  
  This reflects the distorting effect of Marxism, which since it inception has tainted all aspects of Western culture and thought. Even if you're opposing it they've already skewed the entire field so far to the left it's impossible to find any firm, level ground from which to do so. It's the old trick Ford described with the Jew store: they stake out a position that's so far from the truth; in fact, the complete inversion of the truth, that even in arguing against it you've already fallen into their trap. If the Jew prices a thing at 10 dollars and you haggle him down to 5, you walk away thinking you've got a good deal. But all along the actual value of the thing was 1 dollar. We see this so often in political debates today. The point is Marxism is, has always been, and can only be, totally irrelevant and illegitimate as a 'school of history' (or economics or anything else, for that matter), since it is wrong on its first principles, which are self-contradicting and empirically incorrect. This was shown literally over a hundred years ago, when
  Das Kapital was systematically debunked soon after it was published (not that Marxists took any notice). Therefore everything that follows from those principles, no matter how convincing it may look on the surface, is also wrong ipso facto. No fruitful tree can grow from crooked roots.
  
  Trueman (or should that be Jewman?) regurgitates the Marxist meme of racialism and nationalism as "inventions" of the 19th century, thus himself making a categorical error--a failure to distinguish between the country, or the nation-state, which is a political-juridical entity, and the nation, which is a biological-cultural one, and inevitably predates and oftens survived it. In other words, he is locked into the intrinsically flawed liberal schema that views history primarily through the lens of politics, economics and law, rather than as a product of the much more fundamental forces of environment, genetics and demographics.
  
  His inability to step outside the incoherent framework of civic (i.e. fake, artificial) nationalism, according to which, yes, most nations are modern creations, though others (such as Japan, England and Ethiopia), emphatically aren't. But all this is irrelevant since throughout history and even today the dominant force has been not civic but ethnic nationalism. And this goes right back through the Renaissance and the Middle Ages to the time of the Ancient Greeks. Just because Germans and Italians didn't yet have unitary centralised political structures didn't mean there weren't German and Italian nations. If there weren't, what the fuck were Bismarck and Garibaldi uniting?
  
  Jesus Christ I cannot get over how dumbfuck this meme is and yet it still gets spewed over and over and fucking over by globalist and their water-carriers. It's refuted by literally all the evidence there is! If people would just read what premodern people wrote and take their words at face value, not trying to second-guess and evacuate them and play games with semantics and abstract intellectual categories. Everyone was a nationalist! Everyone has always been a nationalist. The nation is just an extension of the tribe, and the tribe has always been the fundamental unite of human social organisation for as long as humans have existed.
  
  Ffs he refutes himself in his own writing! Luther recognised himself as belonging to one nation, the German nation, and Italians as another. The fact that this is so despite neither nations having united states of their own at that stage, proves that is nationalism (understood in its proper, ethnic sense) is not an anachronistic category at all, but, along with sex and other such biological fundamentals of human existence, an eternally recurrent and relevant shaper of human destiny. Nation-states do not define national identity; national identity is what defines nation-states. Countries do not create nationalism; nationalism creates countries. Ethnicity is the precursor of nationality, not its product. Germans are not just the people who happen to live within the borders of Germany, (((Trueman))), and you know that. If that were true, literally none of European history for the past thousand years would make sense. Quite the contrary, Deutschland is the land of the Deutsch, i.e. the place where the German folk live and have lived for millennia. It is Germans who make Germany German, not the other way around.
  
  What is anachronistic is applying the modern liberal-leftist enforced dogma of race-denialism and internationalism to people in the past who unlike us, had as little trouble grasping the obvious biological, physical and æsthetic reality of race and racial differences as they did the equally real and evolutionarily-determined reality of sex and sex differences. The idea that all people are equal or that obvious racial differences are only some sort of damnable optical illusion is a uniquely modern fallacy, and one the people of the past would have found as incomprehensible as our million made-up """genders""".
  
  Dear God he triggered me so much in one page.
  
  Ironic in the 'Word-Concept' fallacy section when he says 'One can scarcely coin a term for a concept that does not exist' (though in fact one can, if one intends to bring it into existence), since he made exactly this error when he dismissed nationalism and racialism as 19th century anachronisms, and Italy and Germany as 19th century creations.
  
  His facile remarks about race and British fascism annoyed me again.
  

  Is race to do with skin color? Eye shape? Hair? Language?

  
  All of the above, except for language, and much more. This is very basic biology, (((Trueman))) and not difficult to understand.
  

  British fascism was little more than a comic sideshow cast of a bunch of hooligans who liked walking around in black shirts, shouting at people.

  
  In fact the BUF was one of the most vibrant and vital British political movements to date, enlisting tens of thousands of men and women across all ages and sections of society, including many of its foremost members.
  
  Political pet peeves aside, I can't say it helped me all that much in my practice as a student historian, so for that reason I'd give it 2.5 stars, rounded down.
• 
  Chris Hansen

  An very readable and oddly engrossing treatise on the study of history and its attending pitfalls. Trueman, a church historian, uses this book to elucidate the various fallacies that many historians (himself included) and readers of history so easily fall into. Most of the book is organized by fallacy. In each section he will describe the fallacy, demonstrate its dangers and why it is so easy to fall into, and then draw on a number of examples from history to illustrate it. Examples include illustrating the dangers of anachronism in evaluating Martin Luther's antisemitism or allowing explanatory schemes to become prescriptive instead of heuristic as in Marxism.
  
  I particularly appreciated how Trueman ably navigates between the Scylla of postmodern relativism and the Charybdis of naive objectivism in his discussion of historical method. Yes, Trueman admits that all people bring their biases to the task of history and cannot entirely escape their cultural situatedness when approaching people and events of another time. However, bias does not preclude all hope of objectivity. Good conclusions are still testable and subject to critique and refinement. Knowledge is still attainable.
  
  I am not a historian, but I did find that this book was quite helpful as a reader of history. All of us deal with history in our lives whether or not we enjoy reading tomes on obscure 16th century religious figures or just like listening to our parents and grandparents discuss their childhood and we all must interpret it. Trueman's book will help us avoid the pitfalls and fallacies in doing so that are just as easy to fall into as a reader as it is for a writer.
• 
  Brandon Lehr

  Over the past couple of years I have become increasingly skeptical of history. It seems as though today we have everyone just re-writing history, re-interpreting events with the sole purpose of promoting their agenda. Everything is propaganda. America was founded as a Christian nation. None of the founding Fathers were Christians. What is a Christian?
  
  Can any historical account be trusted?
  
  Thankfully, Carl Trueman has written an insightful book explaining the problems we are faced with in the writing of history. Histories and Fallacies is a delight to read and filled with wisdom. Trueman walks the reader through real life examples of some of the rights and wrongs that are frequently committed. I was just as fascinated by the subjects he chose as examples, as I was with the lessons he was teaching. Tackling issues such as Holocaust Denial, Marxism, and was Luther an anti-Semite are just some of the real world histories he explores.
  
  I found Trueman's work to be very enlightening. I learned much that I can now apply in my research of historical events and in rightly interpreting scripture. I highly recommend this book to everyone who could benefit (and who couldn't?) from a behind the scenes look at the work of discerning historian.
• 
  Trevor Schaefer

  This is a marvellous book for a beginning historian to read. It makes clear the distinction between a number of related and often confused concepts:
  the past: "what really happened"
  contemporary sources: news accounts, diaries, journals, letters;
  history: a selective re-presentation of the past, using the above sources.
  What Trueman is doing very well is 'historiography', reflecting on the writing of history.
  He shows the danger of all-explanatory schemes of history like Marxism, and introduces us to a 'fistful of fallacies'. He has a most instructive chapter on holocaust denial and reminds us:
  "No event in history is so certain that, sooner or later, somebody won't come along and deny that it ever happened."
  We have just seen this occurring with the '500th anniversary of the reformation', when some historians argued that Martin Luther never nailed his theses on the door of the Castle church.
  In the chapter on the 'past as a foreign country', he does an excellent analysis of the question, "Was Luther a racist?" with regard to the Jews.
• 
  Chris Wray

  I thoroughly enjoyed this primer on historiography, written as it is with Carl Truemans typical engaging and direct style. I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of the importance of history: "History, when done well, is one of the most exciting, entertaining, and stimulating activities in which we can engage. Understanding the past helps me to understand myself; understanding the world of yesterday serves to clarify my understanding of the world of today."
  
  However, this is an importance that is heavily discounted in modern Western culture: "there has been a trend over recent decades toward a kind of epistemological nihilism that has so relativized everything that access to the past in any meaningful way is virtually denied; and the more this is the case, the harder it is to argue that the statement "Elvis died in 1977" is a more accurate historical claim than "Elvis spent 2008 working in the Cricklewood Community Center.""
  The overarching theme that Trueman pursues is that there is such a thing as truth and that the historian, through a methodological sifting and analysis of the available evidence, can approach it.
  
  In his introductory remarks, Trueman makes three interlinked contentions.
  
  First, he indicates the importance of historians, and readers of history, remembering some of the principles of doing history well. Some level of methodological self-awareness is crucial as it can help us understand the nature of evidence, how much weight can be placed on any single artefact, what questions can legitimately be asked of certain texts, how evidence should be selected, and what the implications of such selectivity are for the history then written.
  
  Second, he asks whether the fact that no history can be neutral renders all historical narratives as so biased and relative that their claims to historical truth are meaningless. His conclusion is that, while there is no such thing as neutrality in the telling of history, there is such a thing as objectivity, and that varied interpretations of historical evidence are yet susceptible to generally agreed upon procedures of verification that allow us to challenge each others readings of the evidence.
  
  Third, he argues that all histories are provisional in the sense that no one can offer an exhaustive account of any past action, given the limited state of the evidence and the historian's inevitably limited grasp of context as well as distance from the past. However, provisional merely means limited and subject to refinement; it does not make all readings of the evidence equally valid, or equally unreliable.
  
  The Denial of History - Neutrality vs Objectivity
  
  Trueman points out the basic point that history is not simply "the past" but is a representation of the past by someone in the present. This means that claims to neutrality are vulnerable to the criticism that it is merely a specious means of privileging my point of view. In addressing this, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that history written without a standpoint is not simply practically impossible - it is also logically inconceivable.
  
  This leads to an important distinction that needs to be made: the distinction between neutrality and objectivity. Most historians will acknowledge the biased nature of the history they write and also maintain that they aspire to be objective in what they do. The reason that this is so is that verifiability and accountability by public criteria lie at the heart of the historians task. There are matters upon which the evidence is open to a variety of legitimate but different interpretations, and there are areas of evidence where there is no legitimate room for disagreement. It is this notion of legitimate versus illegitimate interpretations that most upsets the consistent radical relativists of the postmodern historical guild.
  
  The limitations of the artifacts available to the historian means that it is often impossible to achieve precision and accuracy on a host of minor points; but this does not mean that the larger claims of a particular historical narrative are negotiable, or that the narrative is merely one equally valid version among many, or that it is epistemologically ungrounded. This highlights the need to ask the right questions about the evidence and the interpretation of it, and to understand how sophisticated and interdisciplinary the discipline of history is. The historian also needs to be aware of the power of aesthetics when it comes to assessing evidence and argument, and to remember the aesthetic fallacy (just because something looks scholarly doesn't mean it should be taken seriously).
  
  At this point, we need to make a distinction between historical theories (Marxism and the like) and historical method. While those with different ideological frameworks may disagree over whether some artifacts constitute evidence, or over the relative importance ascribed to certain mutually agreed pieces of evidence, there is substantial agreement among historians over what is and is not relevant. The historical task has an intimate connection to evidence.
  
  To refute the postmodern idea that evidence can mean anything, we must remember the importance of context in the analysis of individual historical artefacts. As the historian starts to connect one historical artefact to another, an account of the past becomes possible, and some accounts start to look more true than others. It is this aspect of history, corroboration and verification, which allows us to take some interpretations seriously and to dismiss others as nonsense.
  
  This kind of corroboration and analysis cannot be neutral, as the historian's own perspective will always shape how he selects and reads the evidence. However, it is a huge leap to go from there to saying that all histories are equally valid, or that history is ultimately all about aesthetics. By contrast, most historians strive for objectivity: they have a working hypothesis; they test it by evidence; and they reject it, modify it, or affirm it based on the evidence. No historian writes neutral history and thus that every historical narrative reflects the author's own approach in some measure, both as to selection of evidence, shaping of story, and various emphases and purposes.
  
  However, this does not require us to accept that all histories are equally valid or engage in the kind of naive posturing that equates "unbiased" with "objective." Objectivity is not neutrality: historians with different ideological and philosophical commitments can write history that can be read, appreciated, appropriated, and critiqued by each other because all build their case on publicly accessible and publicly assessable evidence. Objectivity is thus a much more modest, and much more attainable, category than neutrality.
  
  In reality, there is a remarkable consensus among practicing historians over what constitutes good method: verification, correlation of evidence, awareness of the strengths and limitations of different types of evidence, etc. Historians may, and do frequently, disagree over the significance of historical actions and events, but there is usually general agreement over the actual reality of such events.
  
  Grand Schemes and Misdemeanours: Theory vs Method
  
  All historians operate with certain notions of what it is that drives human action and provides the dynamic for history. The strengths of such explanatory schemes are that they allow for a coherent narrative account of the past, which does more than simply list events on a piece of paper as if they were isolated, unconnected happenings. They offer ways of establishing causal or influential points of connection between such events in a way that brings out the reasons why specific things happened in the way they did.
  
  However, the historian's task is not simply that of bringing a hard-and-fast model to bear and merely gathering data that confirms it; good historians operate with hypothetical explanatory schemes that are subject to correction by the evidence gathered. This brings out the distinction between theory and method. Theory should be held loosely, as a hypothesis, and subject always to correction in light of the standard procedures of the historical profession: corroboration, verification, and falsification. Historical explanatory schemes should be heuristic not prescriptive.
  When a historian is wedded to a precise philosophy of history, the questions asked tend to be of a limited nature and be self-confirming. Even more serious is the question of the falsifiability of the claims made by a grand scheme of history such as Marxism. Such approaches are fundamentally unscientific as they are immune to criticism; there is no criticism from outside that they will accept as legitimate. This is a form of idealism that will ultimately squeeze the particulars of history into a presupposed framework that is derived from abstract philosophical principles, not the result of induction or deduction from historical phenomena.
  
  The important thing for a historian is that a balance be maintained between an a priori model that allows an identification and interrogation of evidence, and an acknowledgment that the evidence itself may require a modification or even an ultimate rejection of the model.
  
  The Past Is a Foreign Country - The Problem of Anachronisms
  
  One of the greatest temptations for historians is to impose on the past ideas, categories, or values that were simply non-existent or that did not have the same function or significance during the time under study. The problem of anachronism can take a number of different forms:
  
  - A failure to understand that the meaning of certain words has changed over time, thus imposing a meaning on a text that was never there.
  - Seeing the pasts agenda simply in terms of modern developments, leading to the temptation to ask of the past only those questions which seem to be significant in the world of today.
  - Categorical anachronism, meaning the use of a particular category as a means of analysing a historical phenomenon where the category is not appropriate to the time and place under discussion.
  - The imposition of moral, ethical, or intellectual standards that did not apply during the time under study.
  
  One of the great strengths of history writing is that it involves a synthesis of data, with the benefit of chronological hindsight, that allows us to offer not simply robotic chronologies of who did what and where, but of why they acted in the way they did and what significance their actions had. To undertake this task of history means that the present must engage with the past, so there is always a danger that anachronistic ideas from the present will creep into the analysis and run counter to the evidence.
  
  This is also another reminder of the need for modesty in conclusions. Because contexts are as large as the historian cares to make them, conclusions are necessarily limited and provisional. Again, this is not to say that all conclusions are therefore equally valid, that all histories are equally true; but rather that no history can claim a status that means it can never be improved or refined because of fresh discoveries or insights.
  
  A Fistful of Fallacies
  
  Reification: This is the act by which an abstraction is given an existence it does not really possess and, from the historian's perspective, can therefore take on a life of its own. It ceases to be the end term of a process of historical interpretation and becomes rather something that stands as an a priori category of analysis.
  
  Oversimplification: One of the perennial temptations of the historian can be to oversimplify when constructing an explanation. This is what we might call one of the fallacies of causality. In short, the historian needs to be wary of oversimplification and of defining the meaning of a historical action with reference to one single cause or intention. Historical actions are complex and require complex explanations; and this is why knowledge of context, as broad as we can make it, is critical. Further, the historian needs to understand that such complexity also means that, once again, any historical interpretation is provisional, not in the sense of, say, being necessarily susceptible to being shown to be false but in the sense of being a limited explanation.
  
  Post Hoc, Propter Hoc: Another common error to avoid is that of post hoc, propter hoc, or literally, "after this, because of this." This is the argument that because event B happened after event A, therefore there must be some causal connection between the two things. Sometimes there is no connection; other times the connection might be much more complicated than the historian has made it out to be. It is also worth bearing in mind a logical distinction between necessary causes and sufficient causes. A necessary cause is such that, if phenomenon B is present, then A must be present too; though the presence of A does not necessarily imply that B will occur. A sufficient cause is such that A necessarily implies the presence of B, but B could be caused by C; thus the presence of B does not mean that A is necessarily present.
  
  Word-Concept: Another fallacy to which historians must not fall prey is confusing the word with the concept.
  
  The Genetic Fallacy: Historians who commit the genetic fallacy are guilty of the error of allowing the origins of something to determine its current nature or meaning.
  
  Generalisation: On one level, some generalisation is necessary, but generalisations cause problems. First, they can be used in a way that is connected to the problems of reification. Second, they can lead the historian to make claims that are logically unsound, particularly in analogical arguments that move from one set of circumstances to another in order to draw inferences about the latter.
  
  Asking the Right Questions: In sum, the historian needs to think about not just historical evidence but also about the kinds of questions to ask of the evidence. As always, there is the need to be self-critical, to see what ideological freight is contained within the questions themselves and how this may lead to certain conclusions.
  
  Category Confusions: This error is simple, as two things are compared or contrasted that are actually incomparable.
  
  Providence: There are many problems with providential readings of history, but two are particularly worthy of being highlighted. First, they attempt to explain particulars in terms of a universal, which is remarkably unhelpful in its limitations. The historian deals with particulars; providence is universal - and universal causes are of no great use in particular explanations. Second, they claim to read God's will off the surface of historical events in a glib and easy manner. In fact, what they really do is allow the historian to express his or her own particular philosophical or moral commitments in a way that is invulnerable to external criticism. In short, while providence is a sound theological doctrine, but it really has no place in the toolbox of the historian because it pushes the historian beyond the realms of what is and is not verifiable according the canons of evidence and interpretation.
  
  Conclusion: The Usefulness of History
  
  The culture in which we live in the West exhibits powerful anti-historical tendencies, for a variety of different reasons. The dominance of science and technology has led to an assumption that the present is superior to the past, and the future to the present. Capitalism and consumerism, built as they are upon innovation, constant re-creation of markets, and thus also the built-in obsolescence of commodities, also promote such values.
  
  An understanding of history is crucially important to a rounded understanding of the present. History confronts the student with a different time and a different place, where people think, act, and behave in different ways. In this manner, rather like immigration, we come to understand the forces and influences that shaped the way the world was in the past, and hopefully we become more aware of the way in which forces previously unnoticed and invisible shape and guide the present.
  
  We can choose to ignore history, and thus doom ourselves to understanding our own small world as reflecting nature, just the way things are, and by so doing doom ourselves to be enslaved to the forces around us that remain unseen but which nonetheless exert a powerful pressure on us. Alternatively, we can study history, and in so doing, simultaneously relativize our times and ourselves and, ironically, somewhat liberate ourselves in such a way that we understand more of our world and how we fit into it. Only the man who knows the forces that shape the way he thinks is capable of resisting those forces; and history is a great help in identifying and exposing such hidden things.
  
  The secret to becoming a better historian is really no secret at all: be aware of the various errors and fallacies noted in this book; read widely in the discipline; as you do so, ask not simply what is being said, but how the historian is going about the work of saying it; read widely in the culture of your chosen period; read eclectically across the disciplines, pillaging anything from other fields of intellectual endeavour that might help you understand the complexity of human action; read the classics of history; know the history of your discipline; and read sane accounts, by proven historians, of how they themselves pursue their craft. When you have done all this, you will find that you are a better historian than when you started.
  
  As a post-script, I loved this waspish comment Trueman made on the common postmodern category of 'the other'. "Interestingly enough, the Other is rarely defined by such postmoderns in terms with which the middle - class intelligentsia would be uncomfortable: members of the Ku Klux Klan, Holocaust deniers, serial killers, and collectors of other people’s toenail clippings would all seem to have first - class claims to having been marginalized and written out of the dominant narratives of this world; but none, so far as I know, enjoys the support of a significant postmodern lobby group."
• 
  Phil

  Having enjoyed a couple of Trueman's other books, I came across this and decided to read it. I have a growing appreciation for history books so it seemed good to me to see what Trueman has to say. I have read one other book about historiography (which is the study of doing history) for a class in College, and I don't remember anything about it.
  
  I quite enjoyed this book as Trueman is a skilled writer and manages to make the subject interesting and at times funny. To help myself digest the material a bit better I decided to summarize each chapter briefly.
  
  Chapter 1 is an exploration of whether it is possible to say that one history is true while another is false, with holocaust denial as a test case. This chapter deals with the objection posed by post-modernism which says that all truth is subjective, and that every point of view is equally valid. Trueman commendably accepts the nugget of truth at the heart of that critique but shows that just because it is impossible to be perfectly objective in the doing of history does not mean that we have no means by which to evaluate truth claims. Rather, he shows that even those who argue for the subjectivity of truth nevertheless argue for that position and other positions by appealing to evidence. At the end of the day, we either believe in verifiable evidence-based truth or we descend into intellectual chaos. Trueman takes the right approach - he tips his hat to the critique and says "quite true, we need proper modesty about truth claims since none of us has complete knowledge or is infallible," while nevertheless affirming that some things can be known with certainty, and that there are generally agreed-upon criteria for determining the validity of evidence. Therefore the discipline of history is saved from incoherent absurdity and we can get on with it. I read this book shortly after watching the film "Denial" (look it up). Trueman refers to the fascinating events depicted in the film throughout chapter 1.
  
  Chapter 2 deals with explanatory schemes, or metanarratives as they are sometimes called. Trueman argues that everyone (including every historian) has some kind of explanatory scheme, that it is impossible to do history without one, and that there are grave dangers to being committed to an overly rigid explanatory framework. To illustrate this last point, he turns to Marxism and Marxist history. Trueman begins by acknowledging the positive contribution that Marxist thought and history has made, namely the recognition that economics plays an important role in human affairs, a role that is sometimes missed or downplayed by those working with other explanatory schemes. He then turns to exploring the distorting effects of trying to fit history into a rigid ideological framework like Marxism, taking the historian Christopher Hill as an example. I was blown away by the fact that this Oxford historian, so excellently educated and evidently intelligent, could utter patent atrocity-denying nonsense such as arguing that there were no famines in the USSR under Stalin in the 1930's, and that all the evidence was Western-manufactured propoganda. One of the key insights in this chapter was that Marxism is essentially unfalsifiable. Any and all evidence submitted can be interpreted in a Marxist framework. If something can never be proved wrong, then it isn't a theory of the world based on evidence, it is an assumption which is adopted prior (and immnune) to the evidence.
  
  Chapter 3 deals with the challenge of understanding the past in its own context, and not merely bringing our own contemporary questions and issues directly to the past. The fancy word for this is anachronism. Trueman explores two test cases from the reformation: the comparison of Calvin with Turretin, and the question of Luther's anti-semitic remarks.
  
  Chapter 4 is the last chapter and is called "A Fistful of Fallacies," in which Trueman takes the reader through a number of common historical fallacies which are sure to make you feel hesitant to write history. The one fallacy I found most insightful of all was at the end of the chapter, and could be called "the providence-as-explanation fallacy." This one is reserved for Christians and deals with the tendency, especially in some circles, to offer explanatory interpretations of contemporary events (usually catastrophes). Here is a quote:
  "Once the 'God's Providence' card is played, the argument is over. The Christian thinker who hates abortion is confronted by the outrage of 9/11 and uses the events as an opportunity for reinforcing his or her own moral understanding of the nation. The connection between the terror attacks and the nation's stand on abortion is not empirically verifiable; it exists solely in the mind of the interpreter. It is a gnostic connection to which others have no access. Indeed, another person sees it as a judgment on militarism and free trade. In each case, providence is wheeled in as a means of providing divine sanction for the interpreter's own political views. The interpretation itself cannot be verified because it offers an explanation that enjoys only a highly speculative connection to the empirial events." (p.167) Good stuff.
  
  I recommend the book to those with an interest in history.
• 
  Lionel Taylor

  This book caught me by surprise. I was expecting a dry academic book on historiography, but this was not the case at all. This is a short, concise, very readable book about common mistakes that historians make. Too often, historiography classes focus too much on theory and the various ideological approaches and not the historian's core job. Trueman sums up the job of the historian as answering this one fundamental question: " Why is this person doing this thing in this way in this place at this particular point in time?" All other concerns, while important, should not be the central focus. This is often lost in service to trying to prove an ideological point or stay true to a particular ideology. While all historians have perspectives on the subject they are studying, this does not mean that. The biased historian cannot write history or that you should not use different mythological approaches, but rather telling a good factual story should be the central goal. One should also be aware that your findings are always provisional and that new evidence or new perspectives can challenge. The type of history that Trueman promotes is a well written, detailed history that advances the discipline. Keeping the guidelines and suggestions that he write about in this book goes a long way towards accomplishing this.
• 
  John Walker

  Carl Trueman has written a modest, yet extremely helpful and readable little book on the task of the historian, entitled Histories and Fallacies. As the title suggests, Trueman concerns himself primarily with historiography and historical fallacies. However, do not be fooled into thinking that this is the work of a pompous historiographical theorist. Trueman is a historian. He has a method, but that method is not his end. He aims to write history - to actually do it, not just talk about how it should be done. If you're not convinced, he can speak for himself:
  Most historians, in my experience, just think of themselves as doing history; and there is much to be said for the avoidance of the frankly pretentious and obscurantist language that is so often used by those who spend their time not so much writing history themselves as reflecting on the 'theory' of history. Too often representatives of the latter caste are committed to demonstrating that what clearly works in practice cannot work in theory, a rather bizarre, parasitic, and frankly contemptible way to spend one's life. (Trueman, 22)
  That's polemic at its best.
  
  Now, why would a guy like Trueman, who clearly does not have the highest regards for the theorists out there (God bless them!), write a book on historiography? Well, his intent is to bring methodological awareness to historians. To help readers reflect upon the historical task as it is engaged, and to help them avoid common pitfalls. Trueman is no pedant peddling novel theories, rather he's a scholar whose fought in the trenches, and this is his manual for the doers of history.
  
  In the first chapter, Trueman employs the example of Holocaust Denial and its pseudo-historical grounds to critique the radical postmodern assumption that deems all historical narratives equal. While he acknowledges the role of the historian in history making, he rightfully denies that historical work cannot be objective. A careful distinction is made between objective history and unbiased history. The latter is a dream, the former is a necessity. Good history, is objective history. Before you object (nice pun), note how Trueman defines objectivity. What is objective, is that which is a public argument, accessible to peer evaluation, and constrained by the canons of historical criteria. Certainly there are a range of valid, justifiable historical reconstructions, however, that range is limited by the evidence (contra, hard-PM historiography). Trueman spends a great deal of time, in a very engaging account, demonstrating the clear - morally obligatory - recognition that their is a difference between biased unobjective history (ie: Holocaust Denial) and biased objective history (ie: Holocaust Witnesses).
  
  In the second chapter Trueman examines the role historical schemes play in the writing of history. For example, he demonstrates how Marxism reads all evidence through the lens of dialectical materialism and class struggle. The Marxist explanatory scheme determines the driving cause of historical effects. This is where tips his hat most to the postmoderns. He acknowledges the significant role played by the historian in her selection of evidence and understanding of driving forces. However, Trueman dispels potentially rampant relativism by calling the historian to acknowledge her theory's provisional nature. Espousing a sort of critical-realism, he says we must hold our theory lightly and allow it to be refined by new evidence. Thus, the problem with Marxism is its a priori, unfalsifiable (and thus unscientific) structure. There is not evidence to counter the Marxist scheme, thus it is a fallacious historical approach. As with the previous chapter, this chapter is interspersed with tons of anecdotes and examples, specifically from Christopher Hill. These examples are helpfully and stick to Trueman's aim of avoiding the purely abstract and hypothetical.
  
  Chapter three addresses anachronism, using two helpful examples to demonstrate its error. The first example is in comparing John Calvin's theology with Francis Turretin's and concluding that their theology are in great contrast. The second deals with Martin Luther's perceived racism. Both, according to Trueman employ some sort of anachronism in either applying later categories upon earlier thought (which skews that figures actual thought) or in simple negligence of historical context. I must note, Trueman does not dismiss Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric, however, he does correctly state that it was not about race, thus, not biological, but rather it was religious prejudice. While certainly not absolving Luther, he correctly identifies the term racist as anachronistic.
  
  Chapter four is just what the heading suggests, "A Fistful of Fallacies". Trueman exposes the wayward errors of reification, oversimplification, Post Hoc, Propter Hoc, Word-Concept confusion, the Genetic Fallacy, Generalization, the issue of poor, answer-determining questions, category mistakes, and finally, the be-all-end-all answer of providence. All of which he handles with great tact. This section will cause most to blush as they identify at least one fallacy they have committed. I especially appreciated his critique of providence as a historical explanation.
  
  Trueman ends with a discussion of the importance of history as a discipline, some helpful tips to become a better historian (basically, READ A LOT), and oddly enough, an excursus on the reception of John Calvin. That was the biggest bummer about the book. I don't know why it ended with an excursus, especially when it was of little relevance as an exemplar. Yet, please don't let that keep you from buying the volume. If anything, it's a bonus chapter!
  
  Trueman did a very fine job in this book. Apart from the really helpful historiographical content, the historical accounts are great fun. An excellent introduction to the historian's task.
  
  Note: This copy was received free of charge in exchange for an honest review.
• 
  Bennett

  Histories and Fallacies is a straightforward book of essays on the topic of historiography. Trueman's discussion of HDs (Holocaust deniers), Marxism and Reformation history is lucid in both senses of the word. My favorite chapter, "Grand Schemes and Misdemeanors," articulates the trickery at work in Marxist readings of history and explains the importance of using the notion of "falsifiability" when discerning the cogency of someone's historical arguments.
  
  The other chapters each explain different historiographical fallacies that are all-too-common in history books and one's daily conversations. In the post-script Trueman gives a short list of books to read for the historian in progress (worth the "read" alone) and the advice to read widely and avidly across disciplines and deeply in the areas of interest.
• 
  Jaxon Thacker

  Trueman ends the book by stating his hope for the reader in the book. In part, he says “It is my hope that this little book will serve to ignite that interest in others, to guide them away from dead ends and methodological mistakes to fruitful and creative avenues of approach…”
  
  I believe that he accomplishes this! The book when discussing different historical accounts makes them lively and outright interesting. It certainly sparked an interest in me to continue on reading and studying history, something I was not too certain about prior to this book.
  
  The book has solid arguments although not exhaustive or overly in-depth in support of a a more empirical methodology in interpreting history.
  
  Overall this work is interesting, informative (at least for a novice in the real man of history), and brought about a new confidence in the ability to find truth through historical evaluation.
• 
  Abby Jones

  This is one of those books that I had to bite off in small chunks, a little bit at a time. When I finished it, I felt like I needed to start all over again because there was just so much here. Trueman is easy to read generally, but this book is far more academic than most of what I’ve read of his. It wasn’t without its moments of humor or enjoyment, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in history. It will help you be more discerning in what you read. It’s also a good book for sparking conversation.
  
  
• 
  Scott

  Just as Trueman hoped, this is an excellent book to introduce a thoughtful high school or college student to the discipline of history. Readers get a good introduction to how historians use sources and make arguments, as well as the kinds of mistakes that come quite easily when people try to explain the past. Reading this book before my first year of graduate school would have been very helpful for me.
• 
  JR Snow

  A little long-winded in the beginning when beating the dead horse of postmodernism (just because a text has interpretations doesn't mean it has no meaning). Afterward, it gets better. Great case studies such as Holocaust denial, Calvin's Institutes vs. Turretine's, etc. Interesting analysis of Marxism.
  
  The end, where books are recommended and a fistful of fallacies pointed out, is the best part and worth reading to get there.
• 
  Praiseworthy Pursuits

  Dr. Carl Trueman is a tremendously insightful individual whose writing style is approachable by both the avid historian and the novice alike. While a book on this subject could easily become dry and esoteric, he grounds the concepts in countless examples and anecdotes that illustrate and entertain. A great read and a primary resource for any aspiring historian hoping to avoid common pitfalls of historical writing.
• 
  John Rossitto

  Admire the author
  
  Having enjoyed other books by Truman, this one caught my attention. It has provided insight into not taking texts at their face value or jumping to conclusions which I am prone to do. It also offers grace to prior personalities by not judging them by todays mindset but rather viewing them in light of their own times. Often witty, very readable and worth the time if this is an area of interest.