In defence of Hume's historical method

A tradition among certain Hume scholars, best known as the ‘New Humeans’, proposes a novel reading of Hume’s work, and in particular of his conception of causality.2 The purpose of this paper is to conduct a similar move regarding Hume’s historical method. It is similar for two reasons: firstly, it is intended to reintegrate Hume’s theory into present-day debates on the nature of history; and secondly, the reading I propose is directed against the standard interpretation of Hume’s history. This interpretation claims that in spite of being a historian, Hume misunderstands the nature of both historical knowledge and the historical enterprise. In other words, the Humean methodology would be incompatible with a genuine historical practice. This censure is based upon three particular criticisms: (1) The criticism of ahistoricalism: Hume believes human nature is an unchangeable substratum, and thus cannot account for historical change. (2) The criticism of parochialism: Hume is trapped in his own historical province3, and thus understands other times in the light of his own. (3) The criticism of moral condescension: Hume presumes the same standard is applicable throughout history, and thus judges the past according to his own moral standard. I shall argue that these criticisms are the result of a misunderstanding of what Hume means to accomplish through his investigation of history and that moreover, he is aware of these pitfalls

Explorations in Historical Method

In 1985 The Academy of Accounting Historians established a new committee named The Accounting History Research Methodology (AHRM) Committee. The Academy specified the objectives of the Committee as identifying the range of historical research methods and facilitating accounting historians\u27 access to literature on historical methodology in general. More broadly, its role was envisaged as one of encouraging a greater awareness and use of historical method in accounting history research

Report on basic historical method

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to researchers in accounting history who may not be familiar with some of the research methods used by historians. This report concentrates on some basic concepts in historical methodology; a second report will focus on other techniques and specific areas of study. The material presented here is not new, but it is hoped that a concise summary of basic ideas will be helpful to accountants who may not have the time to delve into the various works available on historical methodology

Historical Method and Hermeneutic Creativity

This paper seeks to focus on how the search for a gnoseological and art-historical model, prompted by the article studied here, “Toward a New Model of Renaissance Anachronism,” was articulated by its authors, Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood. Their starting point was a morphological approach that sought to identify the artistic model of a specific figure, the Risen Christ, which appears in the Vision of Saint Augustine painted by Vittore Carpaccio in 1502-1503 for the Confraternity of San Giorgio degli Schiavoni in Venice. This matrix of models – gnoseological and morphological – shows how history and morphology, at least in the realm of art history, can only proceed if they are in unison, but at the same time they require particularly attentive reciprocal methodological monitoring in order to avoid creating a theoretical cognitive model based on analogies of form that fail to convince through empirical evidence, as the author believes was true in this case study.This paper seeks to focus on how the search for a gnoseological and art-historical model, prompted by the article studied here, “Toward a New Model of Renaissance Anachronism,” was articulated by its authors, Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood. Their starting point was a morphological approach that sought to identify the artistic model of a specific figure, the Risen Christ, which appears in the Vision of Saint Augustine painted by Vittore Carpaccio in 1502-1503 for the Confraternity of San Giorgio degli Schiavoni in Venice. This matrix of models – gnoseological and morphological – shows how history and morphology, at least in the realm of art history, can only proceed if they are in unison, but at the same time they require particularly attentive reciprocal methodological monitoring in order to avoid creating a theoretical cognitive model based on analogies of form that fail to convince through empirical evidence, as the author believes was true in this case study

The Historical Method in Biblical Interpretation

The failure of exegetes to agree on hermeneutical principles is said to be one of the major causes for the divisions in Christendom, and, as Avey pointed out more than 25 years ago, American denominationalism will not disappear unless all bodies agree on basic principles of Biblical interpretation. Biblical scholars of the liberal tradition claim that the greatest obstacle to any agreement among exegetes lies in the continued use of the so-called dogmatic method inherited from the Reformers. Its advocates are charged that on the assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant they employ the prooftext method in an arbitrary fashion. The net result is said to be that these exegetes view the Bible as a static and fixed body of religious and ethical truths. Modern Biblical scholarship prides itself on using the historical method, also known as the scientific or critical method

Historical Method in Canadian Literary Studies: Some Recent Examples

Publisher's version/PD