> I agree that the study of history is [a] method [...] for recognizing the errors which produced those enormities, in order to avoid repeating them. Why? Do w

> I agree that the study of history is [a] method [...] for recognizing the errors which produced those enormities, in order to avoid repeating them. Why? Do we have any evidence for that it helps at all? Here's what I find weird: when one is talking about learning history, usually the "pro" side cites the importance of the subject, and the "no" side, the methodological "flaws". It seems that this discussion is a bit pathological: Everyone agrees that if a certain avenue of study can reduce the probability of genocide, it should be undertaken. The question is that maybe (probably) these avenues of study do nothing of the sort. Of course, we can disagree about that. But how would we settle/improve our knowledge of the question?