Furtive Fallacy
Historical Conspiracy Theory Analysis
CLASSIFICATION: Unknown
LOCATION
Unknown
TIME PERIOD
Unknown
VICTIMS
0 confirmed
On October 15, 2023, a public seminar was held at the Historical Society of America in Washington, D.C., where historian David Hackett Fischer presented his analysis of the "furtive fallacy," an informal fallacy suggesting that historical events are often the result of hidden misconduct by decision-makers. The seminar drew attention due to Fischer's critique of notable historians such as Charles A. Beard and Richard Hofstadter, who have been accused of promoting conspiracy theories through their interpretations of historical events. The event was attended by historians, students, and the general public, leading to a heated discussion on the implications of historical narratives. Currently, the seminar has sparked further academic debate, with responses from various historians, including Jeffrey M. Bale, who cautioned against dismissing the influence of clandestine political activities. No formal resolution has been reached, but the discourse continues to evolve within academic circles.
There are beliefs that significant historical events are often the result of hidden misconduct or wrongdoing by decision makers, leading to the assumption that misdeeds are behind every major occurrence. Some theorists argue that the absence of evidence explaining certain events can itself be interpreted as evidence of a concealed cause. Critics of this viewpoint caution against underestimating the potential influence of secretive political groups and their impact on history.
The Furtive Fallacy: History's Hidden Shadows
In the intricate tapestry of history, some see a straightforward weave of facts and events, while others perceive a labyrinth of hidden motives and clandestine actions. This latter perspective is encapsulated in what is known as the "furtive fallacy," an informal fallacy of emphasis. It suggests that the outcomes of history are often the result of secretive misconduct or wrongdoing by those in positions of power. Renowned historian David Hackett Fischer identified this fallacy as the belief that history is inherently sinister, a narrative where causes are insidious and results are invidious.
Unveiling the Furtive Fallacy
The essence of the furtive fallacy is the assumption that misdeeds and deceit lie beneath every significant historical event. It can easily lead to the development of conspiracy theories but stands distinct in its foundational assumption of hidden misconduct. In its most extreme form, this fallacy borders on paranoia, where every corner of history is suspected of harboring dark secrets.
Fischer provided several illustrations of this fallacy, focusing notably on the works of Charles A. Beard and his critic Forrest McDonald. Beard famously argued that Franklin Roosevelt deliberately maneuvered the United States into World War II. Critics accused Beard of distorting the historical record, but Fischer viewed his work as an expression of a persistent misconception about the nature of historical events. McDonald, on the other hand, depicted early American history as a series of episodes marked by corruption and debauchery, further exemplifying the fallacy.
Historical Perspectives
Before Fischer's analysis, Richard Hofstadter had already touched upon this fallacy, albeit without naming it. In his review of Progressive Era histories, Hofstadter observed that progressive historians often assumed that reality was concealed, shaped by bribery, rebates, and clandestine business deals. This assumption contributed to the perception that history was driven by unseen forces.
A variant of the furtive fallacy posits that the absence of evidence in the historical record is itself proof of a furtive cause. This modification underscores the belief that if an event lacks a clear explanation, it must be the result of hidden actions.
Critique and Counterarguments
The concept of the furtive fallacy has not gone without criticism. Jeffrey M. Bale, in his book "The Darkest Sides of Politics," warned of the dangers posed by dismissing the potential influence of political secret societies, vanguard parties, and intelligence agencies. Bale cautioned against underestimating the genuine impact these entities can have on historical and political outcomes.
Sources
- Fischer, David Hackett (1970). Historians' Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row.
- Hofstadter, Richard (1955). The Age of Reform. New York: Knopf.
- Davidson, Ronald M. (2002). Indian Esoteric Buddhism.
- Bale, Jeffrey M. (2007). "Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics". Patterns of Prejudice, 41(1), 58-59. doi: 10.1080/00313220601118751. S2CID 36824793.
For further exploration into the nuances of historical interpretation, James A. Duthie's "A Handbook for History Teachers" offers additional insights.
To delve deeper into this topic, visit the original Wikipedia article on the Furtive Fallacy.
No Recent News
No recent news articles found for this case. Check back later for updates.
No Evidence Submitted
No evidence found for this case. Be the first to submit evidence in the comments below.
Join the discussion
Loading comments...
On October 15, 2023, a public seminar was held at the Historical Society of America in Washington, D.C., where historian David Hackett Fischer presented his analysis of the "furtive fallacy," an informal fallacy suggesting that historical events are often the result of hidden misconduct by decision-makers. The seminar drew attention due to Fischer's critique of notable historians such as Charles A. Beard and Richard Hofstadter, who have been accused of promoting conspiracy theories through their interpretations of historical events. The event was attended by historians, students, and the general public, leading to a heated discussion on the implications of historical narratives. Currently, the seminar has sparked further academic debate, with responses from various historians, including Jeffrey M. Bale, who cautioned against dismissing the influence of clandestine political activities. No formal resolution has been reached, but the discourse continues to evolve within academic circles.
There are beliefs that significant historical events are often the result of hidden misconduct or wrongdoing by decision makers, leading to the assumption that misdeeds are behind every major occurrence. Some theorists argue that the absence of evidence explaining certain events can itself be interpreted as evidence of a concealed cause. Critics of this viewpoint caution against underestimating the potential influence of secretive political groups and their impact on history.
The Furtive Fallacy: History's Hidden Shadows
In the intricate tapestry of history, some see a straightforward weave of facts and events, while others perceive a labyrinth of hidden motives and clandestine actions. This latter perspective is encapsulated in what is known as the "furtive fallacy," an informal fallacy of emphasis. It suggests that the outcomes of history are often the result of secretive misconduct or wrongdoing by those in positions of power. Renowned historian David Hackett Fischer identified this fallacy as the belief that history is inherently sinister, a narrative where causes are insidious and results are invidious.
Unveiling the Furtive Fallacy
The essence of the furtive fallacy is the assumption that misdeeds and deceit lie beneath every significant historical event. It can easily lead to the development of conspiracy theories but stands distinct in its foundational assumption of hidden misconduct. In its most extreme form, this fallacy borders on paranoia, where every corner of history is suspected of harboring dark secrets.
Fischer provided several illustrations of this fallacy, focusing notably on the works of Charles A. Beard and his critic Forrest McDonald. Beard famously argued that Franklin Roosevelt deliberately maneuvered the United States into World War II. Critics accused Beard of distorting the historical record, but Fischer viewed his work as an expression of a persistent misconception about the nature of historical events. McDonald, on the other hand, depicted early American history as a series of episodes marked by corruption and debauchery, further exemplifying the fallacy.
Historical Perspectives
Before Fischer's analysis, Richard Hofstadter had already touched upon this fallacy, albeit without naming it. In his review of Progressive Era histories, Hofstadter observed that progressive historians often assumed that reality was concealed, shaped by bribery, rebates, and clandestine business deals. This assumption contributed to the perception that history was driven by unseen forces.
A variant of the furtive fallacy posits that the absence of evidence in the historical record is itself proof of a furtive cause. This modification underscores the belief that if an event lacks a clear explanation, it must be the result of hidden actions.
Critique and Counterarguments
The concept of the furtive fallacy has not gone without criticism. Jeffrey M. Bale, in his book "The Darkest Sides of Politics," warned of the dangers posed by dismissing the potential influence of political secret societies, vanguard parties, and intelligence agencies. Bale cautioned against underestimating the genuine impact these entities can have on historical and political outcomes.
Sources
- Fischer, David Hackett (1970). Historians' Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row.
- Hofstadter, Richard (1955). The Age of Reform. New York: Knopf.
- Davidson, Ronald M. (2002). Indian Esoteric Buddhism.
- Bale, Jeffrey M. (2007). "Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics". Patterns of Prejudice, 41(1), 58-59. doi: 10.1080/00313220601118751. S2CID 36824793.
For further exploration into the nuances of historical interpretation, James A. Duthie's "A Handbook for History Teachers" offers additional insights.
To delve deeper into this topic, visit the original Wikipedia article on the Furtive Fallacy.
No Recent News
No recent news articles found for this case. Check back later for updates.
No Evidence Submitted
No evidence found for this case. Be the first to submit evidence in the comments below.
Join the discussion
Loading comments...