Presentism

Presentism can refer to either a style of argumentation or philosophical position, depending on the context in which it's used.

Tomorrow is a mystery, but yesterday is History

Secrets of times gone by

Belgian Congo Classical mythology Egyptian revolution of 2011 History of black people in Britain Homo ergaster Neolithic Revolution Phoenicia Prohibition Pyramid Roman Empire Stonehenge Taiping Rebellion v - t - e

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

Argumentum ad martyrdom Nirvana fallacy Pierre d'Ailly Relevance logic Science was wrong before Style over substance

Bad logic

Appeal to bias Fallacy of opposition Post-designation Science was wrong before Tone argument دوراهی اشتباهی v - t - e

History and sociology

Historical determinism and context

In the field of history and sometimes sociology, presentism is a style of writing or argument that can be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. Most simply, presentism refers to, intentionally or unintentionally, writing history from a teleological point of view (or historical determinism) or reading primary documents outside of their historical context. The most blatant forms of presentism are revisionist, negationist, or triumphalist histories attempting to justify the actions of a certain group or paint it as superior. Teleological forms of history like that of Karl Marx or technological determinism (the belief that technology determines history) and triumphalist pseudohistories like those written by David Barton are usually characterized as presentist. Those extolling the good old days or a golden age inevitably commit this fallacy.

Moral judgments

Another common form of presentism is allowing present-day moral judgments to creep into characterizations of the historical figures. For example, you can dig up quotes from any number of figures active in civil liberties or equal rights movements that would seem racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted by today's standards to paint them as crazy, reactionary wingnuts.[1] Historians remind us that people are products of their times and so must be judged within that paradigm. Some, especially politicians, are often blamed for consequences of their actions that they could not have foreseen. This often boils down to legal-esque argument over whether the individual was negligent, short-sighted, or acting with malicious intent. In good scholarly historical work, like in law, it's imperative to separate the consequences of the action from the intent.

The historian's fallacy

The term "historian's fallacy" is sometimes used synonymously with presentism or considered to be a type of presentism. The term was coined by David Hackett Fischer to refer to characterizing the actions or decisions of historical figures as if they had access to all the information we have now in the present.[2] Thus, it is similar to the problem with moral judgments as above. These could be considered a form of outcome or hindsight bias. This is more commonly known among historians as anachronism.

Whig history

Whig history views the past as a march of progress towards the present age of liberty and enlightenment. Assuming that current political ideas were in fact held in the minds of prior figures, it cast those figures in the roles of heroes, people who laid foundations for the current status quo, or villains who opposed them. Whig history frequently appears in the historiography of science, especially in popular works of the Microbe Hunters type. Scientists were either heroes, who are on the side of truth (as is now known), or villains who opposed the emergence of these truths because of ignorance, bias, or clinging to power.

Chronological snobbery

C.S. Lewis coined the term "chronological snobbery" for a similar phenomenon in which intellectual accomplishments of the past are considered necessarily inferior to the ones of the present.[3] This could be considered a type of appeal to novelty.

History itself as a historical product

Less commonly, presentism is sometimes used to refer to works of history themselves as products of their time. There is some debate between historians over what degree historical works are simply products of their time and if, in fact, this is inevitable. Thus, presentism is often unintentional as well as intentional.

Not fallacious

Of course, if you're marshaling historical fact to make an argument about the present, presentism is not fallacious. For example, making an argument for a certain policy based on history is obviously not a fallacy, but is not usually labelled as "presentism" as it's considered within the purview of political science or political philosophy rather than history, though the lines can often be blurry.

Philosophy

In philosophy, presentism is contrasted with eternalism. Presentism is the view that only the present time actually exists, while eternalism holds that past, present, and future are equally existent.

External links

• Against Presentism by Lynn Hunt, American Historical Association (history)
• Presentism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia (philosophy)
• Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer

References

1. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin are popular figures for this sort of thing.
2. Historian's fallacy, Logically Fallacious
3. C.S. Lewis on Chronological Snobbery by Art Lindsley, C.S. Lewis Institute