4 ms·
"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 so
by 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 agoCorrectness 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 agoYou 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".