In the previous topic, we were discussing the importance of storytelling. In this case history is humanity past, we see our failures and our enemies, our victories, and our defeats. As we learn history in schools and universities, it helps give some idea of the domain over which managers actually do have power and influence. Id we consider history as another Way of Knowledge, It helps you see where you can have an effect. Our history is repeating over centuries, as humankind is developing and growing. In my opinion, we can trust history as it provides us with facts and proofs. It is a Reliable knowledge. It is the knowledge that has a high probability of being true as its veracity has been justified by a reliable method. The historian is competent but unfortunately, does not have access to reliable sources of information. This exactly what is discussed in “How Texas Teaches History”. Humanity today, do not know what has happened, as we haven’t witnessed events in the past.
7 thoughts on “History as a Reliable Source”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If your claim that history is a ‘reliable knowledge’ is axiomatic, how would a method of analysis of two historical records that contradict each other work?
Do you think we will continue to see larger events repeating, or do you think we will learn from our mistakes as we get smarter? Is history a WOK or an AOK?
I see your point in the response but more or less you are talking about facts. I would like to see more of your opinions because you have very strong ones and are very good at proving your points!
If history is reliable, why do we get sources that end up being false that previously we thought were legit? How would we be able to get credible sources for the future? We have the technology now but people can do edits and make changes to that. Do you think there is any way to make something a primary source that is 100% reliable? If you take someone’s word, they could be lying or there could be some other reason that they would believe something happened even if they were not lying.
Don’t read this one, I mixed it up, the good one is the other one from me
What do you think about historic events that don’t have enough evidence? do you think that the story has been altered through time?
If history is reliable, why do we get sources that end up being false that previously we thought were legit? What if the cavemen drawing were from some alien or other creature that made them and they were not actually from cavemen. Just because there is 1 way to “prove” it right doesn’t mean that there are not 100 ways to prove it “false”. If you take someone’s word, they could be lying or there could be some other reason that they would believe something happened even if they were not lying. What would be a way that you can prove something that happened in the past, or for something in the future?