4 ms·

The conclusion to this article should have been: it's important to study the past, and find out what the truth is. Memory is fallible, and people often misunder

The conclusion to this article should have been: it's important to study the past, and find out what the truth is. Memory is fallible, and people often misunderstand or lie. But by investigating -- going to more people, consulting more sources, you can get closer to knowing what really happened. Finding and preserving the truth about the past is more important than ever. Truth is under attack from all sides, with politicians moving the Overton window on lying, LLMs, the decline of centralized news, fake reviews and comment farms. If the author meant to say "History is often wrong and surprisingly easy to set right with a bit of investigation," great, but "The past is not true" is an absurd and harmful statement. How would you feel if I hit you with my car and ran, or tried to overturn an election and then said "I'm not guilty because the past is not true"?

mmusson 3y ago
The question is what you really believe to be true. If your car hit me and you truly didn’t remember it that way then you are proving the author’s point. Maybe you do remember hitting me. There will still be innumerable questions that you couldn’t answer because they were out of your perception in the moment. What if it turns out that in hitting me you stopped me from running over an old lady. Whether or not you learn of that detail will have a big effect on how you remember the accident.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Right. The past is true, but your memories are flawed, and your experience is incomplete. You have to make an effort to get the facts right. To get a full understanding of any situation, a good start is to talk to anyone you can who was there when it happened.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    The tricky part is: that's also often a good way to get a misunderstanding. Above you say "tried to overturn an election" - I'm not sure who it is you are referring to here, but that charge was laid at the feet of thousands of January 6th protesters by thousands of journalists and armchair experts, few of whom even ever considered if that was the actual intent of the people. People often don't wonder what is true, because they are not able to even try.

mmusson 3y ago

The question is what you really believe to be true. If your car hit me and you truly didn’t remember it that way then you are proving the author’s point. Maybe you do remember hitting me. There will still be innumerable questions that you couldn’t answer because they were out of your perception in the moment. What if it turns out that in hitting me you stopped me from running over an old lady. Whether or not you learn of that detail will have a big effect on how you remember the accident.

foobarbecue 3y ago
Right. The past is true, but your memories are flawed, and your experience is incomplete. You have to make an effort to get the facts right. To get a full understanding of any situation, a good start is to talk to anyone you can who was there when it happened.
- mistermann 3y ago
  The tricky part is: that's also often a good way to get a misunderstanding. Above you say "tried to overturn an election" - I'm not sure who it is you are referring to here, but that charge was laid at the feet of thousands of January 6th protesters by thousands of journalists and armchair experts, few of whom even ever considered if that was the actual intent of the people. People often don't wonder what is true, because they are not able to even try.