3 ms·

I think the point of article wasn't that 'sensational' history is wrong, it was just that the sensational one gets the attention. Hard Core History is a podcas

I think the point of article wasn't that 'sensational' history is wrong, it was just that the sensational one gets the attention. Hard Core History is a podcast, and fairly accurate. Even HBO shows like The Pacific, while dramatized, didn't have anything obviously 'wrong'. While being dramatic can help people put themselves into the situation, and help understanding. It doesn't just have to be a book of figures. I think you are conflating that 'real' history books must be dry, with 'dry' being 'correct'. But other forms of media can also be used to present accurate information. Or to restate, accuracy isn't dependent on the form of media.

kragen 2y ago
No. Real history books must present evidence for their conclusions, and that evidence must be honest, not faked. They do not need to be correct, only corrigible. Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence. Evidence is dependent on the form of media. "Dramatized" is a euphemism for "faked". Once you've accepted "dramatized" evidence, accurate and correct information—though it can of course be illustrated in a "dramatized" way—inevitably get replaced by information that is completely false but more entertaining, such as ancient-aliens nonsense. Since the nature of the medium cuts viewers off from the evidence, they can't tell the difference between a narrative supported by evidence and a narrative completely contrary to all the evidence. "Dry" means "badly written". History does not need to be badly written to be correct or to be corrigible; the article points out that well-written history used to be common. But it does more or less need to be written.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence" I'm missing something. How can 'Correct and Accurate' not be enough? I'm assuming there was 'evidence' in order to affirm the 'correctness' and 'accuracy'. History book with 'Evidence', I'm assuming Evidence is the thousands of citations, footnotes, appendix, etc... etc... Does that constitute 'Evidence'? I think even this could be picked apart if we wanted. And then, why can't other forms of media supply citations, and appendix, and evidence? The History Book can say "then the soldier fired at the enemy", and provide a citation. But a fictionalized account showing an actor on set doing "then the soldier fired at the enemy", that is false? You're bar for history is a lot higher than just 'ancient aliens'. Or you're just saying, it is a slippery slope, watch HBO's 'The Pacific', and pretty soon you'll be believing in Ancient Aliens?
  - drewcoo 2y ago
    Correctness may not exist even though evidence and falsifiability are present. Accuracy is meaningless without precision. For some precisions, it is entirely accurate to say that the earth is flat. Truth and Falsehood don't really exist in anything except math, philosophy, and theology. History, like sciences, deals with the real world, where there are no proofs but there is evidence and further investigation can improve our understanding.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      You think Truth and Falsehood exist in "philosophy, and theology"??? Not any philosophy or Religion I've seen. There is a lot more truth in History like "Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor", than Religion and "The universe rests on the back of a giant Turtle".

kragen 2y ago

No. Real history books must present evidence for their conclusions, and that evidence must be honest, not faked. They do not need to be correct, only corrigible. Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence. Evidence is dependent on the form of media. "Dramatized" is a euphemism for "faked". Once you've accepted "dramatized" evidence, accurate and correct information—though it can of course be illustrated in a "dramatized" way—inevitably get replaced by information that is completely false but more entertaining, such as ancient-aliens nonsense. Since the nature of the medium cuts viewers off from the evidence, they can't tell the difference between a narrative supported by evidence and a narrative completely contrary to all the evidence. "Dry" means "badly written". History does not need to be badly written to be correct or to be corrigible; the article points out that well-written history used to be common. But it does more or less need to be written.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence" I'm missing something. How can 'Correct and Accurate' not be enough? I'm assuming there was 'evidence' in order to affirm the 'correctness' and 'accuracy'. History book with 'Evidence', I'm assuming Evidence is the thousands of citations, footnotes, appendix, etc... etc... Does that constitute 'Evidence'? I think even this could be picked apart if we wanted. And then, why can't other forms of media supply citations, and appendix, and evidence? The History Book can say "then the soldier fired at the enemy", and provide a citation. But a fictionalized account showing an actor on set doing "then the soldier fired at the enemy", that is false? You're bar for history is a lot higher than just 'ancient aliens'. Or you're just saying, it is a slippery slope, watch HBO's 'The Pacific', and pretty soon you'll be believing in Ancient Aliens?
- drewcoo 2y ago
  Correctness may not exist even though evidence and falsifiability are present. Accuracy is meaningless without precision. For some precisions, it is entirely accurate to say that the earth is flat. Truth and Falsehood don't really exist in anything except math, philosophy, and theology. History, like sciences, deals with the real world, where there are no proofs but there is evidence and further investigation can improve our understanding.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    You think Truth and Falsehood exist in "philosophy, and theology"??? Not any philosophy or Religion I've seen. There is a lot more truth in History like "Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor", than Religion and "The universe rests on the back of a giant Turtle".