Tok History

"History is always on the move, slowly eroding today's orthodoxy and making space for yesterday's heresy."

I agree with this quote to a moderate extent. Knowledge in history is different than knowledge in some other areas of knowledge, such as math, where there are concrete facts that can be verified, but similar to others, such as science. History uses information that may be temporary to construct knowledge. Because of this, ideas or theories in history that were previously thought of as crazy may come to replace orthodox ideas of another time.

To answer this question, it is best that I first define history as an area of knowledge. While many view history as a study of the past, I believe it is actually a study of things that were recorded from the past. This distinction may seem small, but it is very important. Obviously, only a portion of knowledge can be preserved through the annals of time. Even knowledge that is recorded and maintained for many years is altered. The longer the chronological distance between an event and today, the harder it is to obtain verifiable knowledge about that event because it is very likely that it will either be changed or destroyed. Therefore, the knowledge that we come to gain about the past is generally not the truth in its entirety. This is the important distinction that must be made when determining if history is knowledge about the past or knowledge about what is recorded and preserved from the past.

As I said, history relies on information being recorded from the past. New information is constantly being obtained which causes shifts in what is commonly held as truth. New information can come in the form of official documents such as speeches or formal letters, or can be more informal and personal, such as a diary. Old records that were previously thought of as what actually occurred can be refuted by the uncovering of new knowledge. The constant shifts in what is thought of as truth forms the basis of the quote which this essay examines.