Impossible perfect objectivity does not justify abandoning scholarly standards.
Evidence
In a scholarly, meticulous, careful, precise way. No one can achieve complete freedom from bias. But … we do the best we can. This means using the new sciences that have been created for the study of documents, inscriptions, coins, and the like, and trying to achieve a better understanding of the past through methods and sources not previously available. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1962 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Scholarly work is never neutral but can still stay open to contrary evidence; Scholarship is never neutral, so honesty requires declaring one’s standpoint; Criticism and archives must be judged by universal evidentiary standards, not authorial identity — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1046 (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Objectivity is unattainable yet historians must still pursue it rigorously
#corroborates(0.95) — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1962 - Historians should strive for fairness despite the impossibility of full objectivity
#corroborates(0.95) - True objectivity is unknowable yet still worth striving toward in research.
#corroborates(0.95)