Title: The Truth of History

Author: C. Behan McCullagh

Publisher: Routlegde.
Year of publication: 1998.
Pages: 327.

The Truth of History counters the critiques made on history. The author counters the
criticisms by rational arguments. He gives the detail of historian’s technique, methods
and theories to prove that selection of right method and theory yields a true statement of
history.

He begins with critiques about historical inference, cultural relativism and description of
the past world. He says that if historical inferences are well supported by evidences than
it is reasonable to thing that they are true. He claims that things in the world have an
existence independent of our culture, though our perceptions and descriptions of these
things do not. Lenses of culture do not distort the view of world and the statement
cultural effects can be true, if it satisfies the truth conditions. He says, while arguing
against critique of modernists that knowledge of the past does not only rely upon
concepts, beliefs and other texts but also relies upon our experiences, procedure of
inquiry and standards of inference. He assumes that description of past in general and
theoretical tense can be true if provide a good explanation of certain observed regularities
or patterns of behavior. Same can be true in case of generalization and classification as
they are a result of sampling techniques and procedure of inquiry.

He claims that generalization is vital for synthesis and causal analysis. Then he explains
different theories of explanation and interpretation. He describes the procedure criteria
and judgment of these interpretations by scope, intelligibility and truth. He believes that
though the historical interpretation may not be objective at earlier stage but are replaced
by better ones which are result of criticism and efforts of other historians who may
belong to other cultures and are not biased.

While turning to historical explanation he mentions descriptive models of explanations at

first place. This type of explanation provides detailed information about the subject.
Events are described in terms of cause and effect while society is explained in terms of
general theories of society. This process of analysis and explaining history is very critical
and is rejected if found inappropriate. While describing the nature of historical
explanation the author mentions three models of explanation, causal explanation,
contrastive explanation and functional explanation. Causal explanation shows that how
cause increased the probability of occurrence of a particular event. Contrastive
explanation points out the conditions which caused the occurrence of an event while there
was another event which might have been expected to occur in same circumstances.
Functional explanation is the one which describes that events occur due to effects of its
consequences. He rejects the functional explanation and prefers the causal explanation
model.

He mentions nine reasons that can explain individual human action. To explain the
collective actions he mentioned three theories, inference theory, decision theory and
rational choice theory. Inference theory suggests that all actions area product of thought
and judgment. Decision theory says that people are moved by desire without basing upon
any evaluative judgment. While rational theory says that people’s actions are motivated
by self interest. Next he describes the explanation of social change. Social changes are
described either as a result of individual’s actions or in terms of social causes according
to some theory. He discusses positivist theory, comparative method theory of social
change in this regard. He says that social change could not be explained in terms of
individual’s action alone but social causes and generalization is necessary to explain it.
He believes that the study of history and social change by generalization would enable
one to understand the structure of society and its influence on human experience.

The Truth of History is a difficult and complex work. The author examines each and
every criticism in detail. This detailed reference method might be helpful for advance
learners but it causes problem for primary learners. Use of knowledge of philosophy and
philosophical terms adds more to the understanding of problems. The author does not
conclude his arguments separately but as a whole it could be said that he represented his
epistemological ideas on solid grounds.