Using history and at least one other area of knowledge, examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection.

This occurs similarly too with selection of information of our sources. The most evident example of this would be the use of propaganda. Propaganda has been a medium by which governments and rulers have shaped the perception and emotive response of their population. Information which reflects negatively on them will be omitted whilst those more favourable will be included in order that they would be perceived as good. This therefore does not provide information on the state of affairs (typically economic information is omitted, for example in communist Russia) but does help us analyse the power and style of leadership of the time.

However, thus far I have discussed the idea that even biased sources can be scrutinised and examined in order to provide information concerning the motives and reliability of the source.  But the situation is complicated when biased sources our used to provide information which may not wholly be accurate. I find this especially the case in my medieval class when there are very few sources provided on an event and those which do are from a subjective background. The further back in history we go, the more evident this becomes, this is due to a number of factors; such as overall literacy of the population, a millennia ago, generally only the powerful, rich or well educated could write and this was an extreme minority, hence why much of our information on Anglo-Saxon Britain comes from monks. Also the survival rate of documents is an issue, considering long term damage. For example, our main information provider for the period of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta was from Thucydides and then Xenophon. This becomes an issue considering their political allegiances and ethics which contribute to bias. How then do we obtain knowledge from such events as these? To a greater degree this comes from common sense and the use of reason, whether or not sources appear to be biased is quite a simple concept to see, if they are clearly favouring one side and including use of a personal opinion then it is likely that events have been distorted, as with these writers, this is largely not the case. Also, history does not limit itself simply to writings and people. Archaeology plays a key part in our analysis, by excavating various areas we can determine whether Thucydides was likely to be correct or whether the geophysical results contradict the literature.

Historians are generally interested with the entire contexts of events, rather than small individual occurrences. It is very difficult to manipulate history through invention of events without being detected, as other sources and archaeology tend to give away these fallacies. Therefore, with the example of pro-Athenian Thucydides, although he may have glorified Athens’ participation in the war, he would not be able to ignore the undeniable truth that Athens lost this war.

Most commonly when attempting to obtain knowledge and information, a historian will use a wide range of information in order to reach an objective opinion. By using a wide range of sources, some which disagree with others, historians are improving the accuracy of their findings. Factors such as reliability, background of the writer and his knowledge of the full events are all important in coming to a conclusion and by carefully analysing these sources I think it arguable that historians can come to a legitimate conclusion. Of course this process requires the use of selection, however