Joseph,

What is you definition of a "historical fact"?

Do you hold that a fact is something that is logically provable or scientifically verifiable?

Dennis

Dennis Mazur 

History is subjective, because it is based on what the author of history is interpreting. As each of our experiences as individuals underlies our knowledge, attitudes and behavior, what we do is subjective. Although it refers to the process, there are elements outside us that help shape the subjective things (that we have). But whatever it is, objective and subjective is the process of gaining knowledge that has lasted for a long time. Learning from others, as well as self-discipline is a concrete example of objective and subjective. Thank you.

Dear Dennis!

fact:

1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.Law. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

Maybe it is right?

a "historical fact" is a real (objective)  fact in the past but we can only give its interpretation using our data about this fact

If a "historical fact" occurred in the past, then this "fact" is describable under different descriptions.  Since the "historical fact" has in a sense ended at a particular time in the past, in the present if may not be clear which of its descriptions is true.  One description may be considered "true" by some; other descriptions may be considered "true" by others.  In one sense, all descriptions are potentially true and should also be included in the ultimate description of the "historical fact".until some principle is developed to sort through the facts to determine which descriptions are "more true" and which descriptions are "more false" than the others in the set of descriptions which is the "historical fact" in question.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Nobody can claim that any historical fact is hundred per cent objective. The subjectivity of the person who writes/documents the historical facts always conditions his writings. 

Dear Dr. Babul,

I totally agreed with you , when Malaysia under colony day , all the history book are written based on English authors' view .By comparing with all the newspaper reference ,and journals, a lot of facts are distorted ,and all favor to the England government

Chin Yew Meng

Open University Malaysia

Dear Yew Meng Chin Thanks that you have liked my comments. However, I meant something more than than. Even when a local person documents historical facts, he can not be hundred percent objective. His subjective elements, even if he tries his best to remain objective, one way or the other will influence the outcome of his documentation. Human subjectivity errors is difficult to overcome completely in literature and art subjects. "Ghost scares human or human scares ghost" - the truth of this argument will depends on how the author interpret the situation. However, the human subjectivity of the author will most likely influenced him to portrait a human centric opinion.

We know for a fact Pearl Harbor was bombed. Most of the world takes it as fact the Holocaust occurred, but we know there exist people who still dispute it. So, does an event become a fact when agreed upon by general consensus?

Personally, I do not believe that anything can be 100% objective.

In Romania generations after generations of children learn at school that the Romanian people formed by the union of the civilized Roman men with the dacian women, who were uncivilized, after the conquest wars of Emperor Trajan. No Romanian historian dares to support in the academic environment that this theory is absurd. The official theory is perpetuated with the help of the prestigious professors who can not admit that they have wronged and of their descendants who have built their academic careers on this representation of the ancient history of Romania: what good luck with the virile and civilized Roman invaders!

Dear Daniela!

The same problem was in Russian: Vikings=Russian ???

I found "The history of Romania": 

http://www.localhistories.org/rumania.html

Dear Joseph,

 It happens the same way in other places / histories,I guess. History is not objective. History is an instrument of legitimation and consolidation of power, that can be used in many ways. Moreover, there are currents in history and there are academic vanities.

Most important point is to be noted that 'history' is distorted not only by the subjectivity of the original author but also through subsequent interpretation and recasting of the original narrative again and again down the generation. Each time a historical narrative is rewritten, it gets distorted by the subjectivity of its narrator. Thus, what we read after several hundreds years, is totally a distorted - a much different - picture that what was originally.

05.07.2017: Dr. Babul Roy, New Delhi, India.   

Rewriting of the history is a common process in Russia: 

see: http://www.economist.com/node/10102921

Joseph, you might find Hilary Mantel's considered views in the current Reith lectures enlightening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9/episodes/downloads

This depends entirely on what we define as within the sphere of historical research. If we treat history as a broad study of the past, as many high schools in North America do, that definition includes all empirical knowledge since all empirical knowledge is based on the observation of past events. Therefore it is better to refer to history as a specific stream of methodologies in studying past events and the attempts to understand the relationship between the past and present. 

Following this definition, we find a loose spectrum between objective and subjective. As close to objective as we can find are direct pieces of knowledge with either irrefutable material evidence (archaeological or carbon dating for example), or an overwhelming body of evidence with no substantive refutations. The date of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of June 28th, 1914 falls into this category since there is no evidence to suggest a different date, at least by our western Calendar.

Close to the objective side but a bit further along is recorded data, which includes census data and inventory logs. Pending no contradictory evidence, we can usually assume that this data is historically accurate. This data is not fully objective, but reasonably so, since without subsidiary data supporting it, there is always the possibility of tampering or distortion.

Closer to subjectivity are diaries and memoirs. While we can usually assume that what the person records is accurate to their recollections, there is always the probability that their memories are distorted. This is particularly true of memoirs written long after an event when external dialogues and messages affect meaning.

The most subjective are narratives with little-no evidence contained within the narrative: why something occurred. This is particularly difficult to work with in ancient religious texts, states with significant propaganda, and events with few-no other accounts. 

While other forms of historical truths can vary in subjectivity, that should give a basic overview. There are facts closer to objective than others and there are dialogues that may or may not have any truth in reality. This is one of the big challenges historians face, especially when historians often have agendas of their own (known or not), and when we have to contend with other prevailing dialogues. 

Thanks Quentin Holbert for your analysis of objectivity and subjectivity in historical interpretation. There is no doubt that History as an academic subject is always claimed to be objective. And that is why History as a serious subject found a place in modern academic discussion and studies. There is no doubt about that. But, the point is that the claim of objectivity of history is how much objective? Not only that the political intervention or the dominant cultural influence often conditions historical interpretation, but also that our scanty materials (because archaeological or historical materials are always scarce representing only a part of the whole situation) on which we attempt to write our history often lead us in misinterpreting history. I have one simple example: Archaeological evidences found in Mohenjodaro and Harappan sites in Indian subcontinent suggest a history of urban civilization in India at some 4,000 years BC. And when we think about urbanization in India we think for a date 4,000 years BC., and this become a dominant idea in understanding history in India. This view completely sidelined the actual truth of the place undermining the vast areas of the subcontinent that perhaps then existed at many different levels of development or civilization attainment, about which no archaeological data are found. Here, the more fancy and dominant views sidelined the "other views" on the topic.  This is an unavoidable subjectivity of interpretation in History.

@Kathy Szabo ,Peter Griepic

From Kathy Szabo comments:

"We know for a fact Pearl Harbor was bombed. Most of the world takes it as fact the Holocaust occurred, but we know there exist people who still dispute it."

I sure that in Pearl Harbor somebody did not hear about bombing.

Billions believe in God, but according to the Bible only Moses spoke to him. It is possible to compare the reliability of events in our history and experimental data. One reliable fact of billions of facts in nuclear physics proves the probability of its appearance. 10 people witnessed the murder and 5 others cheated. So there was no murder ?

If some true facts prove the existence of the Holocaust and the attack on Pearl Harbor, then these events were reliable.

Somebody did not hear about bombing because he was deaf.

People who deny the Holocaust rely on data that are the consequence of logical assumptions and not correct experimental facts. For example, such a small hole in the crematorium stove- how it could burn people? Well, you yourself tried to shove the dead man there ?

The facts are facts: they have occurred. Depending on the researcher: a) the interpretation and / or correlation between different facts; b) the search for meaning behind them; and c) the search for causal links.