{"id":5527,"date":"2025-08-27T13:25:13","date_gmt":"2025-08-27T13:25:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/?p=5527"},"modified":"2025-08-28T12:42:10","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T12:42:10","slug":"david-hackett-fischer-historians-fallacies-toward-a-logic-of-historical-thought-1970-summary-and-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/08\/27\/david-hackett-fischer-historians-fallacies-toward-a-logic-of-historical-thought-1970-summary-and-evaluation\/","title":{"rendered":"David Hackett Fischer &#8220;Historians\u2019 Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought&#8221; (1970). Summary and Evaluation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>This <strong>preface<\/strong> is a densely argued and self-aware meditation on the <strong>neglected logic of historical thought<\/strong>, written by historian <strong>David Hackett Fischer<\/strong> for his book <em>Historians\u2019 Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought<\/em> (1970). It functions as both a <strong>critique of existing approaches<\/strong> to historical methodology and a <strong>call to action<\/strong> for interdisciplinary cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s a breakdown and evaluation of its key themes, arguments, and tone:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Main Argument:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer argues that <strong>history lacks a well-developed logical or methodological foundation<\/strong>\u2014not because it\u2019s inherently illogical, but because <strong>historians have historically resisted logic<\/strong>, and <strong>logicians have ignored history<\/strong>. As a result, the field suffers from <strong>conceptual underdevelopment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. <strong>Neglect by Historians and Logicians Alike<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Logicians focus on abstract, universal logic that ignores discipline-specific modes of thinking.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historians often see &#8220;logic&#8221; as restrictive, misleading, or even hostile to the historical enterprise.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Misology (hatred of logic) is rampant in the historical profession, reinforced by culture and relativism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201cIncredibly, the word \u2018logic\u2019 is often a pejorative, in their professional parlance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">2. <strong>Critique of Philosophical and Epistemological Models<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Toulmin<\/strong>&#8216;s idea of <strong>field-specific logics<\/strong> is presented as promising but largely unadopted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Analytical philosophers like <strong>Danto<\/strong> and <strong>White<\/strong> have done meaningful work, but their efforts:\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lack practical utility for working historians<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Are insufficiently empirical<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Force historical thought into inappropriate models like <strong>Hempel\u2019s Covering Law Model<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201cHistorians are made to lie down in this Procrustean bed, even if their heads must be removed to make them fit.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. <strong>Storytelling and Idealism Aren\u2019t Enough<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Some argue history is just <strong>narrative storytelling<\/strong> \u2014 a view Fischer finds overly simplistic.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Others adopt <strong>Collingwood\u2019s idealist model<\/strong> \u2014 which Fischer rejects as fallacious.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">4. <strong>Call for Interdisciplinary Collaboration<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>No single discipline can solve this problem alone.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historians, logicians, and philosophers must work together in mutual respect.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201cEach of these proud disciplines has much to teach the others\u2014and much to learn as well.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Tone and Style:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Intellectually assertive<\/strong>: Fischer doesn\u2019t shy from criticizing big names or entire academic communities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Witty and ironic<\/strong>: He uses quotes (like the jazz metaphor or British disdain for logic) to expose cultural absurdities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Persuasive and scholarly<\/strong>: Balanced use of citation and anecdote. Engaging but rigorous.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Evaluation:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Strengths<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Important and under-addressed issue<\/strong>: Few scholars had written systematically about logic in historical thought.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Clear, critical lens<\/strong>: Fischer identifies blind spots across several disciplines.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Readable yet deep<\/strong>: Manages to stay accessible despite the abstract subject.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Weaknesses<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Occasionally sweeping<\/strong>: At times, Fischer generalizes about \u201chistorians\u201d or \u201clogicians\u201d without enough nuance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Dated references<\/strong>: Though valid in 1969, some references to thinkers or attitudes might feel antiquated now.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Limited non-Western perspectives<\/strong>: The critique is framed entirely in Anglo-European academic traditions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Conclusion:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer&#8217;s preface is a sharp, insightful, and provocative foundation for a book that aims to <strong>clarify and reform the way historians think and argue<\/strong>. It is an <strong>invitation to rethink historical reasoning<\/strong> not as a &#8220;mumbo-jumbo&#8221; of citation and narrative, but as a serious intellectual process that deserves its own logic\u2014empirical, practical, and field-sensitive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It stands as a <strong>landmark critique<\/strong> in historiography and remains relevant for anyone interested in how we understand, explain, and write about the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Would you like a summary or breakdown of the rest of the book\u2019s chapters as well?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">You said:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>summarize and evaluate each chapter and the conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Here\u2019s a structured <strong>chapter-by-chapter summary and evaluation<\/strong> of David Hackett Fischer\u2019s <em>Historians\u2019 Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought<\/em>, based on available scholarly overviews and contemporary commentary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Chapter-by-Chapter Summary &amp; Evaluation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Using the accessible table of contents (via an ebook excerpt), the chapters are grouped in three parts\u2014<strong>Inquiry<\/strong>, <strong>Explanation<\/strong>, and <strong>Argument<\/strong>\u2014leading into an extended Conclusion <a href=\"https:\/\/vdoc.pub\/documents\/historians-fallacies-toward-a-logic-of-historical-thought-gt86hb0lu2c0?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Vdoc.pub<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Part I: Inquiry<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fI: Fallacies of Question\u2011Framing<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer critiques the \u201cBaconian fallacy\u201d\u2014the idea that historians can gather facts objectively without guiding questions\u2014and identifies numerous common pitfalls like loaded questions, false dilemmas, metaphysical speculation, and tautologies <a href=\"https:\/\/www.powells.com\/book\/historians-fallacies-toward-a-logic-of-historical-thought-9780061315459?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Powell&#8217;s Books<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ivypanda.com\/essays\/historical-question-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">IvyPanda<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> This chapter is a strong opening\u2014Fischer establishes that meaningful historical research must start with clear, contextualized questions. It highlights the necessity of hypothesis and intent in scholarship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fII: Fallacies of Factual Verification<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>This chapter addresses errors that arise when historians mishandle sources\u2014like anachronism, misinterpretation of metaphors, or literalism\u2014thus undermining factual reliability <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> Fischer\u2019s critique remains highly relevant: he reminds scholars that interpretation matters as much as collection and warns against presentism and decontextualization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fIII: Fallacies of Factual Significance<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer explores how trivial or irrelevant details can be disproportionally weighted, leading historians off-course. Significance must derive from context, interrelation, and explanatory value <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> This is a timely reminder that not all facts are equal\u2014judgment and synthesis are crucial, not mere accumulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Part II: Explanation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fIV: Fallacies of Generalization<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Although less detailed in summaries, Fischer warns against sweeping generalizations and the misuse of inductive logic\u2014hasty or unrepresentative conclusions <a href=\"https:\/\/www.teachbarker.com\/home\/student-resources\/historical-thinking?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">teachbarker.com<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> While common in historiography, these pitfalls require vigilance\u2014an important caution for narrative historians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fV: Fallacies of Causation<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>He dissects simplistic causal models\u2014monocausal reasoning, post hoc fallacies, and chronological conflation\u2014urging historians to articulate explicit mechanisms and contextual nuance <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> Highly impactful: this thematic warning pushes historical writing beyond storytelling into argued interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fVI: Fallacies of Motivation<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer critiques psychological reductionism\u2014assuming actors acted from hidden motives or single intentions without sufficient documentary basis <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> This pushes historians to ground motive in evidence\u2014not speculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fVII: Fallacies of Narration<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>He challenges over-sanitizing narratives (dramatic plots, teleology), urging narratives to reflect problem-solving rather than tidy arcs <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> A valuable corrective to storytelling bias\u2014encourages authenticity and complexity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fVIII: Fallacies of Composition<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer stresses the danger of unwarranted generalizations about groups or collectives, and the need for disaggregated, evidence-based aggregation <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> This remains a vital methodological point\u2014especially in an era attentive to group identities and representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fIX: Fallacies of False Analogy<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>He warns against superficial comparisons\u2014historians must ensure analogies share deep structure, not just surface resemblance <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> Essential nuance: analogies are helpful if framed as hypotheses, not conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Part III: Argument<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fX: Fallacies of Semantical Distortion<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Here Fischer examines how ambiguous terms, shifting definitions, or persuasive redefinitions can skew argumentation <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> Semantic precision is foundational to clarity\u2014this remains a critical, though sometimes overlooked, point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Chapter\u202fXI: Fallacies of Substantive Distraction<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>He critiques irrelevant appeals\u2014to authority, sentiment, ideology\u2014that can derail logical argument <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> Vital in resisting grandstanding or ideological drift in historical writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the closing chapter, Fischer underscores the stakes: unchecked fallacies erode historical discipline. He proposes a domain-specific logic\u2014a pragmatic, empirical, question-driven logic tailored to historiography, purpose-built for temporal and evidentiary constraints <a href=\"https:\/\/dukereportbooks.com\/books\/historians-fallacies\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Duke Report Books (Beta)<\/a>.<br>Commentators also note that Fischer connects the importance of sound historical logic to contemporary and existential challenges: he advocates for peace, disarmament, and \u201ctemporal sophistication\u201d to help society navigate crises like nuclear proliferation <a href=\"https:\/\/historiansagainstwar.org\/blog\/2009\/05\/fischers-historians-fallacies-as-peace.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">historiansagainstwar.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Evaluation:<\/strong> The conclusion is visionary\u2014Fischer elevates methodological clarity to a civic responsibility. The moral urgency and pragmatism complement his analytic rigor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Summary Table: Strengths &amp; Criticisms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Strengths<\/th><th>Limitations<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>A comprehensive taxonomy of logical pitfalls with vivid examples.<\/td><td>Some categories may overlap (double\u2011booking), as critics observe <a href=\"https:\/\/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu\/2021\/07\/04\/historians-fallacies-by-david-hackett-fischer-and-the-rhetoric-of-fiction-by-wayne-booth\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Statistical Modeling<\/a>.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Clear remedy: a structured, empirical logic for historical inquiry and explanation.<\/td><td>Less guidance on how rigidly to avoid near\u2011fallacies: some simplifications may be analytically useful <a href=\"https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/pub\/193\/monograph\/chapter\/280906?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">JSTOR<\/a>.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Demands methodological reflection from historians, reorienting narrative as inquiry.<\/td><td>Focused mainly within Anglo-American historiography; non-Western methodologies are less engaged.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Strong ethical and civic dimension in the conclusion\u2014history as essential for survival.<\/td><td>Published in 1970; the contemporary application (e.g. digital methods, decolonization) would need updating.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Final Thoughts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Fischer\u2019s <em>Historians\u2019 Fallacies<\/em> is a compelling and enduring manifesto for disciplined, purpose-driven historical thought. By cataloging fallacies across reasoning, causation, narrative, and argument, he forces historians to interrogate their methods as rigorously as their sources. His conclusion ties historical method to humanity\u2019s broader ethical and existential challenges\u2014a profound framing that gives the intellectual project real-world significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While some classification overlaps or context shifts might temper his frameworks today, the core message remains powerful: <strong>history must think better to matter more.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Would you like help mapping these insights onto contemporary historiographical debates or applying them in your own research?Attach<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Search<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Study<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This preface is a densely argued and self-aware meditation on the neglected logic of historical thought, written by historian David Hackett Fischer for his book Historians\u2019 Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (1970). It functions as both a critique of existing approaches to historical methodology and a call to action for interdisciplinary cooperation. Here&#8217;s &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/08\/27\/david-hackett-fischer-historians-fallacies-toward-a-logic-of-historical-thought-1970-summary-and-evaluation\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;David Hackett Fischer &#8220;Historians\u2019 Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought&#8221; (1970). Summary and Evaluation&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-historical-bullshit"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5527"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5528,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5527\/revisions\/5528"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}