How accurate do you think History really is?

[Lord Zentei]

You're really missing the point. Perhaps you know nothing about late Mediaevel English history, but I was referring to a large body of fabricated evidence that has been taught as fact for over 500 years, and probably will continue to be taught as fact in most future historical textbooks. You're trying to turn my claim that commonly accepted historical stories may actually be based on lies. Now, since you obviously don't have two brain cells to rub together, I'll try to explain it simply for you.

Most people 'know' that Richard III was a villainous hunchback who terrorised England until good ol' Henry Tudor saved the day.

However, analysis of the historical evidence outside of the political situation after Richard III's death reveals much of the Tudor documentation to be unsubstantiated propaganda.

Meaning that historians can piece together the truth.

Sadly, most records of the period are Tudor ones.

And the Tudor version of events is still the most common one taught in schools.

THEREFORE: 'History' as most people know it is actually wildly different from the facts.

Which is not the point of the thread.

I could have used a different example, however this is one of the more extreme cases, making it obvious and thus good to use as an example, and it also happens to be the area of history that I know the most about, and thus feel the most qualified to speak about.


Now, where in that does it mention modern historical methods? Or am I simply saying that the history that most people think to be true may actually be a lie? Now, stop trying to pretend that I'm arguing about something that I didn't even mention. Jerk.

The modern historical methods were implied in the OP, fool:

Are we getting a full picture of historical events? Are we proceeding from false assumptions when we look back upon our history? Or do you think modern historians can decipher some of the clues that might bring out a better picture of what actually happened?

The whole point of the thread was whether historians can piece together the truth despite the spin doctoring, not what "most people" think to be the case. If you wanted to go beyond the scope of the thread and discuss common perceptions, you should have articulated yourself in that regard more clearly.

[Zero]

If history is inaccurate, it's due to a lack of evidence of past events. If we have the wrong view of history based on what evidence we have, we won't know it unless new evidence is discovered, and the old view is altered, in which case those claiming that history is accurate will declare it as a plus for their side.

If history is inaccurate, you can't actively prove it without altering modern conceptions of history, so right or wrong, the position that modern historians have it wrong is unprovable.

[Uraniun235]

To give you an idea of some of the clues that historians use, my French Revolution professor told us yesterday about how a lot of European economic history is based on grain prices, because those are very well documented for many centuries.

He then told us about how he, in researching his doctoral thesis, discovered that there was actually quite a bit of data to be had on French interest rates in the decades and centuries leading up to the Revolution to be found in letters that businessmen sent each other, and in the exchange rates posted in a London newspaper.

[K. A. Pital]

History is inaccurate. However, that's all we have.

Check the documents, search for the truth and don't (!) believe raving conspiracy lunatics - which are easy to spot - that has always been the rule.

If the rule is broken - Germany 1930th - and the conspiracy nut mentality infects an entire nation... trouble ahoy.

That's it. However inaccurate history is, it is certainly a science, moreover, one capable of correcting itself, and pretty trustworthy and solid as of now.

Individuals can be mistaken, but the general flow of events or "facts" is above the individual.

[Elfdart]

So much history is lies, half-truths, misinterpreted evidence, propaganda and just plain nonsense that it should be taken with several tons of salt. Just look at how Tiberius is described by Seutonius (as a crazed tyrant, pedophile and serial killer) and Tacitus (as a decent if ineffective leader who repeatedly refused the Senate's offers to make him absolute ruler).

Now some history is pretty good, such as history supported by actual science. But that is the exception. Even good faith efforts to examine primary sources are a tar baby. No sensible person reads a newspaper, watches a newscast or looks at a web site about current affairs and believes everything he sees -or even most of what he sees. Why should anyone take primary sources more seriously from a hundred years ago? Or a thousand? Or two thousand?

[SWPIGWANG]

In abscence of perfect information, the next best thing to do is set a error bound.

This thread is asking about the size of the error bound, and the obvious answer is it depends on the observation in question, and proper methodology would be able to identify it.

Knowledge isn't merely the positive identification of truth, but also identification of uncertainty and the upper bounds of knowledge.

If history is inaccurate, you can't actively prove it without altering modern conceptions of history, so right or wrong, the position that modern historians have it wrong is unprovable.

You can't prove an piece of history is inaccurate without altering it, but it is possible to estimate the probability of error by analyzing the source material. We can look at historical cases where sources get invalidated. We can even set up experiments to check how the exclusion of certain set of sources effects historical anaylsis.

-----------------------------------------------
"True" history is impossible. Lies aside, there is no "perfect" survey of the present in the first case. There would always be some error, but that no way invalidates the study as the study itself is required to find the error margin.