Assumptions Integrate; Whether We Like It or Not

One can look into history and draw many lessons. However, history is so broad in its scope and breath that the worldview component of the historian and the contemporary constructs usually play a big role in what those lessons are. This is to say that historian A can pick a set of influencing factors and say; this is what is key to understanding topic X and the contemporary lessons it has for today is Y. The next person, historian B, with a differing set of worldview assumptions, can evaluate the same topic X and say, no, no these are the key influencing factors in topic X, and its historical lesson is Z.

Debating the relative value of the influencing factors on topic X and the methodology of adding value to each of these factors is what good historical interpretation is, not the lesson itself. This is a cumbersome truth for most and typically only a concern for the academic. The utilitarian use of historically backed assertions in a philosophical or political debate is ultimately the lesson or proof of history; not the methodology used to come to that given conclusion. Explaining the impact of history’s lessons in a debate is easily understood by those not well versed in historical methodology and is usually persuasive due to the fact that it doesn’t distract from the contemporary point being made. While, conversely, stopping in the middle of a debate or persuasive argument to engage in the awkward process of comparative evaluation of historical pertinence to influencing factors is, at best, distracting to your point and, at worst, a way to put your audience to sleep. Unfortunately, recognizing this ebb and flow of debate and/or persuasion, usually leads to a less than holistic use of history as a tool of understanding the lessons of what history does have to offer.

Honestly, this short exploration into the methodology of historical interpretation was meant as a disclaimer to a point I would make about a contemporary subject facing us today; in which I would make a short historical comparison as a platform to build a philosophical point. While my intention is not to misuse history; I found my respect for the methodology of historical interpretation would probably distract from a point that can and should be made about a current debate facing us today.

So, I will cut this short and leave my reader with a different, more fundamental point, about the integration of faith based worldview assumptions and learning. The components of history exist separate and transcendent from the historian. Understanding that any and all historians would consciously or unconsciously integrate their worldview assumptions into how they organize those separate and transcendent points of history will impact the lessons they seek to impart. This statement is not meant to impude sinister intentions onto the motivations of any given historian or historical argument; but rather, it is meant to expose a process of thought, which impacts any given subject matter. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a 'history' (like any discipline) which includes a note about which assumptions they are including into their conclusions, are fundamentally more trustworthy and probably better thought through to balance a wider range of influencing factors.