Theory of Knowledge

Unit 1 Atomic Bomb

James Mayclin

We historians are firmly bound by the authority of our sources (and by no other authority, human or
divine), nor must we use fiction to fill in the gaps... (Sir Geoffrey Elton). To what extent do you agree
with this statement?
I agree with this statement to the fullest extent. I also agree with Humans should not kill other
humans. They are both statements of principle that are quite obviously correct. However, the
importance of these types of statements lies in the thought and reflection that they can provoke. It
would be great if people would not lie, but why do they?
Part of the problem with history as an area of knowledge is that as time goes on, the information
becomes less and less certain. In the natural sciences, experiments are repeatable. Information is much
harder to lose when the subject that is being studied is hardly ever changing. Sir Elton insists that we
should stick to sources, but I would imagine that there is a great deal of difficulty in interviewing dead
people. Of course there are other sources that can be examined, but these will be destroyed by time also.
Even now, there are historical phenomena that we can only be studied by reading secondary sources.
What bias is present in those sources? And due to that bias, what historical information has been lost
forever? It reminds me of George Orwells 1984, when Winston Smith ponders the nature of
information that has been changed and altered to the point where no one is aware of the truth anymore.
If the only place that the information exists is in your mind, how sure can you be of its existence?
History as a way of knowledge is committed to fighting against what I like to call the decay of
knowledge. The decay of knowledge is the inexorable loss of information as misfortune and chance
continue to ruin the few clues that we posses. Ruins that have stood for a thousand years are being
knocked down by ISIS, the clues they hold never to be examined again, only preserved in pictures and
possible 3D scans. As technology advances, the decay of knowledge slows, but that is it. It will never
stop.
Another problem is that facts are not equal to the truth. Jimmy shot Bob may very well be a fact, but
Jimmy shot Bob because Bob was trying to kill him with an axe portrays a very different scenario. No
lies were told, no fiction was made, and yet the truth was still completely obfuscated.
You have to admire Sir Eltons optimism, but the authorities that he lists are just that, authorities.
Authorities, by definition, have authority. What I mean by that very obvious statement, is that most
historians will be compelled to obey the authorities. If a king insists that a historian write a history a
certain way, there is nothing achieved when the historian denies the king. The king can simply kill the
first historian and find another. When dealing with divine authority, things become even more
complicated. If someone believes that an all powerful being has told them how to act, why would he
listen to another human telling them how to act? The fact is that authority will always interfere with the
accuracy of information, especially when the historian or authority believes that they are acting in the
best interest of the world.
Ultimately, Sir Elton had wonderful ideas, but history is very much written by the victor. As the wizard
in Wicked sings, A mans called a traitor, or a liberator. A rich mans a thief or philanthropist. Is one a
crusader, or ruthless invader? Its all in which label is able to persist.