Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 1156468" data-attributes="member: 1325">Because certain myths are perpetuated. How many times have you read "6 million Jews were gassed to death"? This is common "fact". Something you may see in any newspaper article on the subject. The majority of deaths in the concentration camps were of Cholera, Dysentry, TBC, and similar, due to truly inhumane treatment, in unsanitary conditions. Yet the myth persists, and is permitted to persist. Yes, people were gassed, but not 6 million.And this is just for events 60 years ago.Are you telling me that we know the cause-and-effect chain leading to any major event? To the actual reasons behind decisions? Simply stating that an event has occured is not good enough for Historians. We strive to explain why events occur. The further back in history we go, we become even uncertain as to whether cerain events have even occured. Did X really met Y? Where they really lovers? Was it really the cause of war Z?I suggest that you go pick a history book from the early twentieth century and examine what is said there, about certain events and their causes, and then read a more modern text on the same subject.Histories depend very much on the records of those who were closer in time to the events, yet in many cases these can be several hundreds of years after the events they are describing. You see the problem? Certain inventions, certain events, certain details, are inevitably wrong. And when you cannot ascertain the absolute truth, speculation leaps in through the window, all to often.Reapersaurus did not say "We now nothing about history". He stated, rather poorly perhaps, that we think we know alot more than we in actual fact have confirmation for/proof of. The question is: How much of the information we have can we trust? How much of the information we have do we consider reliable?Physics is something completely different, because we rely purely on empirical evidence, not on local descriptions of what occured 500 years prior. It is repeatable. Modern physics is not thrown out the window every time a new theory is brought forth.The question is even more apparent if you choose an area in which there is lots of controversy. Examine texts by a variety of authors on the development of Homonids. You will find a great number of different theories and ideas as to how we evolved. Controversy and speculation are an important part of science, but in the study of history, we are never going to exclude it. Because we examine not only what, but why and how. That is what is interesting, and that is what is so hard to pin down.Many historical records we rely on a single author, who lived many years after event, as a source of the information. This is hardly a satisfactory situation?</blockquote>

Verification