Talk:Historian's fallacy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

more examples would be nice...

Also, should this page make reference to anachronism?

distinction from hindsight bias? original definition?

How does the historian's fallacy differ from hindsight bias? What is special about the "history" (rather than simply "past")?

BTW, does the indicated reference (Historians' Fallacies) really talk about the topic of the article? If so, could you please provide the page number for a definition or "closest description"? At least the title suggest that this is not a fixed term ("the" historian's fallacy, as indicated in the article), but rather a description (historians' fallacies - plural! i.e. all the different fallacies that historians might be subject to).

Finally, if it is really the same as the psychologist's fallacy, I don't see why we should have two articles on exactly the same topic. If it's not, that should be explained in the article. Again, a reference of a definition could be very helpful. Thanks a lot, Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that this fallacy is "the same as the psychologist's fallacy", only that they are "analogous", which means they are "similar" but not "exactly the same". I added the page numbers for the Fischer book, though they're not really needed (if you have the book, you'll easily see the section on this fallacy; if you don't have the book, you don't need the page number.) Yes, Fischer discusses this specific fallacy in addition to many others. Whether this article is different enough from "hindsight bias" to merit two different articles, I don't know. This article is specifically about an error historians are susceptible to; the other is about the phenomenon in general. I don't have the references needed to argue for or against a merge, but maybe someone will at some point. —Kevin Myers 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher criticism

This appears to relate well to Higher criticism, which treats writings such as the Bible as a historical texts to be considered in context rather than infallable information to be read in modern terms. Perhaps a see also? . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]