I believe you are talking mostly about conflicting rhetoric. I’m talking mostly about conflicting accounts of fact. In every level of education, even after the

I believe you are talking mostly about conflicting rhetoric. I’m talking mostly about conflicting accounts of fact. In every level of education, even after the facts changed over time, there was always a canon. This is because history is taught by induction of stories versus deduction of fact. The former is indistinguishable from well-crafted propaganda. The latter is what makes a great defense attorney. But if you look at what history class is all about, it’s the story, which is considered true if it can’t be disproved. We should know that this is logically backward. The burden of proof beyond all plausible alternatives should fall on the storyteller, and in many cases the evidence is sparse enough to support many. And if there are alternative possibilities, the record of our own deceit tells us that we should be less righteous with opinions and more comfortable with uncertainty. For instance, there are entire generations of population labeled as patently stupid or evil for their beliefs and actions, which should induce a stack overflow recursion upon self-reflection.