评论
打印
They will concern themselves with Wilson's education, the influence of his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote. In short, although both groups of historians are dealing with the same subject they will come to different conclusions and use different facts to support their points of view. The facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.
他们会关注威尔逊的教育经历、他的老师对他的影响、他所读的书以及他所著的书。简言之，虽然两组历史学家在讨论同一个话题，但他们会得出不同的结论并使用不同的事实来支撑自己的观点。事实的挑选和忽略并不依据所研究的问题，而是取决于历史学家的观点。
Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be given equal weight, that one of the reasons listed, say, bankers' loans, was most important. The theory here would be that economic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence government.
同样，第三组历史学家可能坚持认为不应该把所列出的各项事实视为同等重要，例如，在所列出的原因中，银行家贷款一项最为重要。这里所使用的理论是：经济问题是人类动机的关键，为数不多的富有的银行家们有着相当大的能力来影响政府。
In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems from something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree because they are not really discussing the same thing. Often they are merely considering different levels of cause and effect. Suppose the teacher asked you "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class" you explained, "because I overslept." Or to use a historical example, "The Civil War began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861."
在以上的例子中，历史学家们之所以意见分歧是因为他们的出发点不同。但他们之间的分歧还来自于另一迥然不同的领域。历史学家们的意见有时出现分歧是因为他们实际上并不是在讨论相同的问题。他们常常仅仅考虑到事物因果的不同层面。假如老师问你：“今天早晨上课为什么迟到了？”你解释说我上课迟到是因为我睡过头了。”还可以再举一个历史上的例子。“南北战争的爆发是因为在1861年4月12日，南卡罗来纳州的海岸炮兵向驻守在萨姆特要塞的联邦部队开了火。”
