評論
打印
They will concern themselves with Wilson's education, the influence of his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote. In short, although both groups of historians are dealing with the same subject they will come to different conclusions and use different facts to support their points of view. The facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.
他們會關注威爾遜的教育經歷、他的老師對他的影響、他所讀的書以及他所著的書。簡言之，雖然兩組歷史學家在討論同一個話題，但他們會得出不同的結論并使用不同的事實來支撐自己的觀點。事實的挑選和忽略并不依據所研究的問題，而是取決于歷史學家的觀點。
Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be given equal weight, that one of the reasons listed, say, bankers' loans, was most important. The theory here would be that economic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence government.
同樣，第三組歷史學家可能堅持認為不應該把所列出的各項事實視為同等重要，例如，在所列出的原因中，銀行家貸款一項最為重要。這里所使用的理論是：經濟問題是人類動機的關鍵，為數不多的富有的銀行家們有著相當大的能力來影響政府。
In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems from something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree because they are not really discussing the same thing. Often they are merely considering different levels of cause and effect. Suppose the teacher asked you "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class" you explained, "because I overslept." Or to use a historical example, "The Civil War began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861."
在以上的例子中，歷史學家們之所以意見分歧是因為他們的出發點不同。但他們之間的分歧還來自于另一迥然不同的領域。歷史學家們的意見有時出現分歧是因為他們實際上并不是在討論相同的問題。他們常常僅僅考慮到事物因果的不同層面。假如老師問你：“今天早晨上課為什么遲到了？”你解釋說我上課遲到是因為我睡過頭了。”還可以再舉一個歷史上的例子。“南北戰爭的爆發是因為在1861年4月12日，南卡羅來納州的海岸炮兵向駐守在薩姆特要塞的聯邦部隊開了火。”
