The decisive choices are made before any method is applied

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the defence of historical objectivity concentrates on the wrong stage of the work. Methods for handling evidence are real and valuable, but proponents argue they only operate once a historian has decided what to write about, which records to consult and where the story begins and ends. Those decisions come first, cannot be derived from the evidence, and determine far more about the resulting account than any later procedure. Proponents argue that each of them carries a judgement. Choosing a subject asserts that it mattered more than the subjects not chosen. Choosing a starting point determines what appears as a cause and what appears as mere background, so an account of a conflict that opens with the invasion tells a different story from one that opens a generation earlier, with both resting on the same documents. Deciding whose experience belongs in the narrative settles whether an event was a settlement or a dispossession. Proponents argue that no amount of careful sourcing can correct a framing, because the framing determines which facts are relevant enough to need sourcing at all. They add that the historian's own position shapes these judgements without their noticing, which is the difficulty. Proponents argue that what appears natural as a question, obvious as a turning point and unnecessary as an explanation all depend on where the writer stands, and that the assumptions a historian shares with their contemporaries are precisely the ones they will never think to examine. On this account peer review makes matters worse rather than better here, since it tests work against what the field already takes for granted. The argument concludes that because the choices that shape a history precede its method, history cannot be written objectively.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that this describes a difficulty every discipline faces in choosing its questions, and that no one concludes from it that physics or medicine cannot be done objectively. They add that framings are not immune to evidence: an account that begins too late is criticised precisely because the record shows the causes it omits, which is how historiography has repeatedly revised its own starting points. Critics also argue that the premise about shared assumptions underestimates how contentious and international the field now is, since historians of the same period from different countries and traditions read and attack each other's framings directly.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Every discipline chooses its questions before applying its methods, and no one concludes from this that physics or medicine cannot be practised objectively. [Rejecting P2] Framings are not immune to evidence, since an account that begins too late is criticised precisely because the record shows the causes it omits, which is how the field revises its own starting points. [Rejecting P3] The claim about shared assumptions underestimates how contentious and international the field is, since historians of the same period from different traditions attack each other's framings directly. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that a history reflects choices, which is why histories are argued about, not that none can be written objectively.