I am confused. I went to a seminar at the university, about whether the Bible is history. The speaker (a Christian theologian) argued, first-off, that while scientists are out to get at the one objective truth, no historian would ever want to say that they are searching for a single truth, and that for them, there are multiple possible truths and meanings.
The first problem I have with the above statement is the notion that psychologists (scientists) are searching for one objective truth. Rather, in most areas, psychologists accept that there are multiple perspectives from which (part of) an objective truth can be viewed, and multiple, non-mutually-exclusive (consistent) levels of analysis (for example, bullying can be explained as genetic inheritance of aggressive behaviours, as individual psychopathology, as a result of family dysfunction, as a consequence of social dynamics…..).
Secondly, although I am no hiatorian, do historians really accept that there are mutiple possible, even contradictory, truths about every and any event? Does the evidence they gather not gradually confirm one account of proceedings over another? Is it not the case that as more and nmore historical evidence is uncovered, the picture gets more and more complex, but inconsistencies are resolved?
Is this notion of multiple possible (contradictory) truths on the part of historians a cop out, because it is, unlike in science, impossible to empirically determine that evidence is false, and difficult to gather evidence that demonstrably resolves inconsistencies? Or am I missing something?