Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future.

        Secondly, neither of our approaches to knowledge about the past and future are completely viable. In other words, both approaches to knowledge are limited as both carry certain biases which make us question their validity. As we approach knowledge about history we have to be aware of the many biases that may be prevalent. These biases all stem from the same issue of us (people we are seeking the knowledge) not being the primary source/witness of the historical event. As we read a piece of historical analysis, we are instantaneously flooded with the author’s point of view, which include his biases; such as whether he is supporting any particular group (social bias), if he has left out any details (deliberate manipulation), whether the topic the historian has chosen is influenced by current preoccupations (topic choice bias), whether the historian has only chosen evidence that supports his point of view (confirmation bias), or whether the historian has disregarded his pre-existing cultural and political prejudices (national bias) before writing the piece. An example of one of these biases would be the exclusion of the Japanese massacre of the Chinese people during World War Two in Japanese history textbooks. This would be an example of deliberate manipulation, as the Japanese government purposely excluded this significant event in history as a way of erasing their gruesome past. Moreover, since history, as we know it, is only what has been recorded by previous sources, we can not be sure of any unknowns that might have happened. An example of this is the discovery of the Americas, as Christopher Columbus, for many centuries, was thought to be the discoverer of the “new world” in 1492. Although, after further research it was found that “at least one group of Europeans had already reached America – Viking mariners are believed to have established a colony in Newfoundland at around 1000 AD” (article handed out in class – May 20th marked the 500th anniversary of the death of Christopher Columbus). In comparison, since our approach to knowledge about the future is based on the past, the biases and limitations of history translate into our knowledge about the future and thus distort our approach. Making the future even more unclear is that our approach to knowledge about the future is only speculation, as compared to the past where we can be certain that parts of knowledge that we acquire about history are true or valid.

        Lastly, when comparing our approach to knowledge about the past and our approach to knowledge about the future, we have to keep in mind the factors of hindsight and foresight. Hindsight of the past is the equivalent of foresight for the future, and thus can be used as a tool for comparing how we approach knowledge about the past and future. Foresight can only be perceived as a prediction (unless one believes in seeing the future - which would be totally awesome by the way), and thus does not play as significant role on our approach to knowledge about the future. On the other hand, hindsight plays a significant role on our approach to knowledge about the past. Hindsight is the recognition of realities or possibilities of an action after its occurrence. Thus, when we approach knowledge about history, we already know the significance of each action that led up to an event. This is an advantage that comes with hindsight, although the disadvantage is that sometimes we fall into the trap of believing that if we were in the same position in the past, we would have made the correct decision, thus failing to understand that when living through events, they seem to be open ended and one can not predict their outcomes. Thus, there is a difference in our approach to knowledge about the past and our approach to knowledge about the future, as our approach to knowledge about the past is set with a precondition of hindsight, which plays a significant role on how we view past events (history), while foresight does not play as significant a role on our approach to knowledge about the future as it is merely a prediction.

        In conclusion, our approach to knowledge about the past as compared to our approach to knowledge about the future has more differences than they do similarities. Our approach to the past is based on evidence and sources, while our approach to the future is based on the past; which creates a similarity in the difference. Both approaches have limitations which make us question their validity, but what differs is that our approach to knowledge about the future is limited as it is only speculation, while our approach to knowledge about the past in limited by various biases. Another major difference is that hindsight is a significant factor in our approach to knowledge about the past, while foresight only reinforces the speculation of our approach to knowledge about the future. The ambiguity of both the past and future creates a similarity between them, but how we approach gaining knowledge about them is completely different.