TOK Essay: Ethical Obligations in History and Human Science - PDF

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence?”. Discuss with reference to history and human sciences Word count: 1473 In this essay, I examine, through different perspectives, whether historians and human...

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence?”. Discuss with reference to history and human sciences Word count: 1473 In this essay, I examine, through different perspectives, whether historians and human scientists are ethically obliged to follow the directive “do not ignore contradictory evidence”. While including contradictory evidence does not always ensure truthful statements, I argued that historians and human scientists must include all evidence not to obtain biased findings.  Historians play a prominent role in society; they document and interpret significant past occurrences – history. Their job enables communities, people to draw lessons from past events to avoid experiencing the same downfalls and mistakes in the future. History is crucial to understanding the global and local context in which we live (Gorman, 2004). Scholars have long debated whether history is purely objective or is in part subjective. Carr (1961) states that “history is an ongoing dialogue between the past and present” (p.30).  The British historian argues that history cannot be purely objective; complete objectivity is unattainable. Indeed, he elaborates that history is not only the gathering of facts, but a contentious interpretation influenced by historians. He thus argues that history is a construct, not a definitive nor indisputable truth (Carr, 1961). On the contrary, Elton (1967) claims that objective history is attainable through empirical evidence and thorough research. He compares history to sciences; facts can be discovered through evidence. He therefore believes that objective truth is historical truth. Whereas, Carr (1961) claims that historical truth is a construction.  Human scientists, such as psychologists and anthropologists, are, like historians, fundamental to society. Differently from historians, whose role is to trace human society’s development and evolution, a human scientist’s responsibility is to discover and understand how human society works. Human scientists' work allows for societal evolution. Their discoveries help address social challenges (SOURCE). To illustrate, Bonilla-Silva (2018) unpacks in his book Racism Without Racists, the concept of colour-blind racism and its role in preserving systemic racism. His discoveries and publications led to the creation of many anti-discrimination policies.  There is an ethical obligation to tell the truth - historical truth - that all historians must follow (Gorman, 2004). As one the moral foundation of historians is integrity, they must always search for historical truth in an honest way, even if such truth might be subject to revision (De Baets, 2009). Other key ethical obligations that historians must follow are: confidentiality, respect of different perspectives and archival conservation (American Historical Association, 2023).  Haecker (1985) claims that for a historical statement to be retained true, it must be: 1- meaningful, 2-verified by robust evidence and 3- reflecting a past state of the world. Thus, historians, to be able to tell historical truth, must take into account contradictory evidence – “evidence that assets or otherwise implies that two opposite things are true by providing evidence for two opposite sets of facts” (p.4) (Mandavilli, 2025). In fact, ignoring evidence would lead to a distorted, superficial, or even deceptive version of history, which would not be historical truth.  However, contradictory evidence is not always taken into account in history (Adjepong, 2015). To illustrate, France’s “civilising mission” (mission civilisatrice) – colonial expansion in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean – was portrayed in society as a selfless, heroic endeavour to develop non-European societies by bringing their ideologies, religion to mention a few to Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.  This portrayal is not a historical truth but rather a historical, colonial narrative. There is a distinction to be made between a historical truth and a historical narrative. Indeed, in a historical narrative historical truth is protected, shielded by possible objections and criticism (Ankersmit, 2010). This widely spread colonial historical narrative has been shaped by western power dynamics which continue to shape contemporary society.  France selected historical facts and spread a version of history that aligned with its interests. This meant that it did not take contradictory evidence into account but rather minimised and/or censored it (SOURCE). However, does this mean that history must be reinterpreted? Doing so would completely challenge national myths but can be a step towards justice. Historical reinterpretation can leave space for marginalised groups to have their story told while acknowledging their past injustices. It is nonetheless argued that revising history is not enough to reinstate justice and that other actions are also required. For example, reparations – a form of transnational justice – are a way of addressing historical injustices.  Reparations are nonetheless not an ultimate solution. Transnational justice concerns how societies react to large-scale and severe human rights violations (International Center for Transnational Justice, n.d.). Despite this, debunking national myths challenges national identity which is why governments and citizens often object and stand against it. Moreover, they are also a means to defend and support colonial policies which is also why governments tend to object to debunking national myths (SOURCE).  Similarly, human scientists also have a strong ethical obligation to tell the truth – empirical truth – which is obtained through experiments and/or observation. It is thus of high importance for them to tell empirical truth as their work has direct impact on human lives. Distorted findings cause harm on societies. To illustrate, Bonilla-Silva (2018) refutes the widely believed myth that racism is not a big problem in society anymore. He invalidates the colour-blind concept which is the ideology that racism does not exist anymore and thus everyone in society must be treated in the same way and that racial differences must not be taken into account – racial neutrality (SOURCE).  An advocate of the colour-blind ideology is Justice Clarence Thomas, a current Associate Justice of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court. He enforces this ideology in the U.S. Constitution (SOURCE). If human scientists must tell empirical truth, this means that they must take contradictory evidence into account. Just as historians whose disregarding of contradictory evidence can lead to biased or incomplete statements, the same applies to human scientists.  To illustrate, the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo (1971), ignored contradictory evidence. The experiment consists of 24 male college students given either “prison guard” or “prisoners” roles in a simulated prison at Stanford University. Zimbardo (SOURCE) asserted that situational authority guides people to act in brutal ways. He however ignored contradictory evidence which included that guards’s behaviour was influenced by Zimbardo and the reactions of the prisoners were exaggerated. Ignoring the contradictory evidence lead to his experiment being discredited (SOURCE).  Even though historians have a moral obligation, duty to tell historical truth, always taking contradictory evidence into account can lead to false conclusions – distortion of historical truth – and the same goes for human scientists. Indeed, some contradictory evidence emerges from misinformation – information spread with the aim to confuse and deceive (SOURCE) – and unreliable sources (SOURCE). Holocaust denial claims are a good example of false contradictory evidence which was used to contradict a factually established historical event – historical truth (SOURCE).  In this case, the historical evidence includes thousands of survivor testimonies and nazi records, among others. The Holocaust – the systemic genocide of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II (SOURCE) – is therefore a well documented event and thus removes any uncertainty of the existence of the Holocaust (SOURCE). Another example is when Ignaz Semmelweis (1840s) – a Hungarian doctor – found evidence that doctors due to a lack of handwashing before having contact with patients, spread diseases, including deadly and dangerous ones.  However, contradictory evidence emerged which argued that diseases were spread by air being polluted and not due to germs. Years later, his finding was recognised as true again and the former contradictory evidence was refuted. In the meantime, the contradictory evidence had deadly consequences (SOURCES).  To continue, the western world has played an influential role in shaping widely recognised historical narratives. Western historians do acknowledge contradictory evidence but they are largely influenced by their own perspectives and preconceptions. In other words, even if historians take into account contradictory evidence, it does not ensure historical truth (SOURCE).  To illustrate, contradictory evidence over who the true “discoverers” of the Americas was made evident to western historians. There was sufficient evidence indicating that Vikings, West Africans among others, had had prior engagements with the Americas than Christopher Columbus (1942). Yet, the prominent historical narrative was that Christopher Columbus “discovered” the Americas. It is only in recent years that historians have started to move away from eurocentric narratives and taken a decolonial approach to history (SOURCE).  This approach to history aims to deconstruct historical biases established by colonial powers to reinstate neglected voices, indigenous epistemologies, and overlooked and suppressed historical frameworks (SOURCE).  In conclusion, ignoring contradictory evidence leads to a distorted, superficial, or even deceptive version of history, which is why I have argued that historians and human scientist have a moral duty to take contradictory evidence into account. However, I have also developed that it does not always ensure truthful statements as dominant powers can take advantage of contradictory statements to align them with their interests. Sources: Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? Penguin Books. https://books.openedition.org/pur/45067?lang=en&utm _ https://www.ictj.org/what-transitional-justice?utm_ (Other sources on Emma’s computer)