Good subject.
Even the history being written about last year is a lie. So yeah, it's a real problem.
And which version of history is correct? Weems invented the Cherry Tree story about George Washington that many of us learned as children in a popular 1806 book. It was presented as fact. A true story. I bet there's a whole lot of people going around who believe in the story.
And an apple hitting Newton on the head? Funny little myth.
If you are taking a test and the question is "Who discovered America?", the answer will depend on the class. Columbus is the answer in one class, Leif Ericson in another, The Chinese in another, and the Native Americans in yet another.
But I think nearly all historians would acknowledge this and when "facts" are presented these things are considered. When a historian writes about events that Thucydides covered as if they are fact, there are many presumptions behind that which are not stated each and every time. It would be absurd to write "Thucydides wrote such and such and if he was telling the truth and if there weren't copying errors and if the whole thing isn't a work of fiction then this is what happened".
The quality and quantity of collaborating evidence behind any "historical event" should give us varying levels of belief about that event. I don't think we can do any better than that.
|