Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Can we trust anything in History?


TigerBright19

Recommended Posts

After spending years of listening to false information on social and mainstream media, with blatant misconceptions taken out of context and exaggerated, and every nation spinning their own brand of propaganda, how on earth can anything in the history books, autobiographies, and TV documentaries be trusted as verified 100% fact?  Currently watching a documentary about Churchill and another about Napoleon, and I can't help but feel the 'experts' in each person are just parroting what they think is true based on the limitations of their knowledge with biased emphasis on the things they like, and total ignorance on everything they don't want to hear, learn or understand.  I mean if the history books were written by historical analysts in the same manner that we see biased political analysts on Fox and Cnn then how on earth can we trust any history book or documentary with any degree of confidence that they actually represent the truth?

Just a curious thought about today's mistrust of facts being a possible common trend in history, which was largely treated with ignorance in the past because most people were uneducated and not in a position to question or correct their superiors regarding the records of each event in history.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

After spending years of listening to false information on social and mainstream media, with blatant misconceptions taken out of context and exaggerated, and every nation spinning their own brand of propaganda, how on earth can anything in the history books, autobiographies, and TV documentaries be trusted as verified 100% fact?  Currently watching a documentary about Churchill and another about Napoleon, and I can't help but feel the 'experts' in each person are just parroting what they think is true based on the limitations of their knowledge with biased emphasis on the things they like, and total ignorance on everything they dnt want to hear, learn or understand.  I mean if the history books were written by historical analysts in the same manner that we see biased political analyst on Fox and Cnn then how on earth can any history book or documentary be trusted?

Just a curious thought about today's mistrust of facts being a common trend in history.

 

I am pretty sure serious academics don't get their information from SM or the mainstream media. If you know better than them, where do you get your information from to judge them?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good point and it isn't just current, when I was a kid we were taught Custer was a hero, and the Don Juan Onate was responsible for colonizing Santa Fe and other parts of New Mexico.  The facts are that both of those two "heros" were lied about in our history books.  

Custer wasn't even a general, they made him a brevit general and sent him west to get rid of him.   When he telegraphed that natives were amassing warriors at Little Big Horn, he was mistaken and told to stand down, but instead he disobeyed orders and attacked a peaceful gathering of nations and got  himself and all 200 men in his charge killed.   It set negotiating treaties back and caused a lot more damage than just 200 U.S. soldiers.   

Onate was sent with troops to protect the colonists and once they got to the original Santa Fe settlement, he took his troops and left the colonists at the mercy of the natives who were angry at all the attrocities that Onate perpetrated as they moved north through the New Mexico territory.   He went hunting for gold and  8 or 9 months later when he returned he found that the colonists had packed up and gone back to Mexico City (it wasn't really a city yet, still occupied by the Spaniards).   They reported his heinous acts that put them in danger and when he finally got his troops back to Mexico city, angry that the colonists had abandoned "his settlement", he was put in jail and all of his property was siezed.

So, recently statues of those two reprobates have been taken down or destroyed because of the truth finally getting into the mainstream.   The natives always knew, but we were lied to.  

Another example is the horrifying extermination of a thriving black/african american neighborhood and the businesses and people who lived  in Tulsa.  There is a  movie about that and it was not that long ago that it happened.   

History is never going to be accurate, because who authorizes what is taught in school?   People who don't want the truth to be told.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

After spending years of listening to false information on social and mainstream media, with blatant misconceptions taken out of context and exaggerated, and every nation spinning their own brand of propaganda, how on earth can anything in the history books, autobiographies, and TV documentaries be trusted as verified 100% fact?  Currently watching a documentary about Churchill and another about Napoleon, and I can't help but feel the 'experts' in each person are just parroting what they think is true based on the limitations of their knowledge with biased emphasis on the things they like, and total ignorance on everything they don't want to hear, learn or understand.  I mean if the history books were written by historical analysts in the same manner that we see biased political analysts on Fox and Cnn then how on earth can we trust any history book or documentary with any degree of confidence that they actually represent the truth?

Just a curious thought about today's mistrust of facts being a possible common trend in history, which was largely treated with ignorance in the past because most people were uneducated and not in a position to question or correct their superiors regarding the records of each event in history.

 

People mistrust facts because of the loss of critical thinking skills do to religion and conspiracy theories.

Actual academics have to go through a rigorous "peer review" to make sure their data is correct and their theories are leaning towards facts. 

These academics are trusted sources and you can easily find their praise or criticism with Google. 

The History Channel isn't a trusted source nor the MSM because I'm finding science and archaeology articles of long debunked bull**** being rehashed and reprinted.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I am pretty sure serious academics don't get their information from SM or the mainstream media. If you know better than them, where do you get your information from to judge them?

I would question their credentials by asking them to show all of their sources of information, if they were first hand or second hand accounts, reliable, verified and authenticated, and thoroughly scrutinised by unbiased third parties.  Otherwise I just have to trust them and assume they did not misinterpret or get their information from unreliable or out of date sources.  My observation of the present has tainted my ability to fully trust the people who recorded the past, and those who pretend to be experts on history, when they could simply be experts in a recorded perception of history, filtered by their own limitations and perceptions of history, as many conduct piggyback research and rely on the previous work of others, which may not be entirely reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

People mistrust facts because of the loss of critical thinking skills do to religion and conspiracy theories.

Actual academics have to go through a rigorous "peer review" to make sure their data is correct and their theories are leaning towards facts. 

These academics are trusted sources and you can easily find their praise or criticism with Google. 

The History Channel isn't a trusted source nor the MSM because I'm finding science and archaeology articles of long debunked bull**** being rehashed and reprinted.

The worst thing I have seen on the History Channel is when they have a show about archeology they have Travis Taylor (an astro physist, not an archeologist) as one of their "experts".   It makes me laugh, but it also causes disrespect for anything that channel does.  On shows involving scientific proof of aliens like Ancient Aliens, they have a rabbi and archeologist and other people who are not scientists.   And even though I love Tsukolos it is because he makes me laugh, not because I take him seriously.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

I would question their credentials by asking them to show all of their sources of information, if they were first hand or second hand accounts, reliable, verified and authenticated, and thoroughly scrutinised by unbiased third parties.  Otherwise I just have to trust them and assume they did not misinterpret or get their information from unreliable or out of date sources.  My observation of the present has tainted my ability to fully trust the people who recorded the past, and those who pretend to be experts on history, when they could simply be experts in a recorded perception of history, filtered by their own limitations and perceptions of history, as many conduct piggyback research and rely on the previous work of others, which may not be entirely reliable.

Academics have to. It's called "peer review". 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

The History Channel isn't a trusted source nor the MSM because I'm finding science and archaeology articles of long debunked bull**** being rehashed and reprinted.

Well, no, isn't "Pawn Stars" on the History Channel? It just churns out reality TV stuff.

@Desertrat56 is also spot on, every country has its own version of history, usually some sort of propaganda. In the UK, we were taught in primary school and above that the British Empire was a civilising influence that taught the world how to become Christian, build railways and speak a proper language. Our standard global map that hung on school walls used the Mercator Projection, because it showed the Empire (coloured pink) as huge, even though it falsely showed Iceland bigger than Australia.

Serious historians use primary sources (such as original diary entries or contemporaneous physical artifacts) where possible, secondary sources (such as contemporaneous newspaper reports) where not, to discover what actually happened in the past. I personally think the study of history is fascinating.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

Academics have to. It's called "peer review". 

Wasn't there some controversy because somebody took extracts from Hitler's Mein Kampf and inserted them in their book and it was peer reviewed and accepted.  e.g.

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I am pretty sure serious academics don't get their information from SM or the mainstream media. If you know better than them, where do you get your information from to judge them?

I got some from personal experience.  In an upper division grammar class, I had a text writer as professor.  One of her aside pages had the quote from Neil Armstrong from the first lunar landing.  She said the editors eliminated the quote because it was sexist.  That’s from people who write college textbooks.

People may remember the famous quote, “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

If that historical event can be scrubbed due to some modern political opinion that it’s sexist, yeah….I’d say we are in trouble.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

Academics have to. It's called "peer review". 

Peer review is bypassed by populist historians, the sort who regularly appear on TV or YT.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TigerBright19 said:

Wasn't there some controversy because somebody took extracts from Hitler's Mein Kampf and inserted them in their book and it was peer reviewed and accepted.  e.g.

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

And they were eventually called on it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pellinore said:

Peer review is bypassed by populist historians, the sort who regularly appear on TV or YT.

Hacks

Which is why they are on TV and YT.

Although there is some good ones on YT.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The worst thing I have seen on the History Channel is when they have a show about archeology they have Travis Taylor (an astro physist, not an archeologist) as one of their "experts".   It makes me laugh, but it also causes disrespect for anything that channel does.  On shows involving scientific proof of aliens like Ancient Aliens, they have a rabbi and archeologist and other people who are not scientists.   And even though I love Tsukolos it is because he makes me laugh, not because I take him seriously.

Travis isn't even a astrophysicist. His specialty is optics.

And he's a lying sack of ****.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what historians in a century from now will say about our times? Which records will they use as a point of reference?  Wiki, MSM, influential people?  If we find it hard enough to understand the truth today, then how will historians in 2124 be able to fact check what they think happened in 2024?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I got some from personal experience.  In an upper division grammar class, I had a text writer as professor.  One of her aside pages had the quote from Neil Armstrong from the first lunar landing.  She said the editors eliminated the quote because it was sexist.  That’s from people who write college textbooks.

People may remember the famous quote, “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

If that historical event can be scrubbed due to some modern political opinion that it’s sexist, yeah….I’d say we are in trouble.

Well, that wasn't a serious academic, that was someone with an axe to grind. The Neil Armstong quote has always troubled me. He actually said "That is one small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind" when he obviously meant to say what you quoted. Bit of a shame he ****ed up like that. Though on the larger point, I think everyone knows that when we refer to 'Mankind', we are referring to 'Humanity.' Its like the endless debates as to whether "manhole covers" should be called "person hole covers". Pointless.

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Travis isn't even a astrophysicist. His specialty is optics.

And he's a lying sack of ****.

Next time, speak your mind! lol!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

I would question their credentials by asking them to show all of their sources of information, if they were first hand or second hand accounts, reliable, verified and authenticated, and thoroughly scrutinised by unbiased third parties.  Otherwise I just have to trust them and assume they did not misinterpret or get their information from unreliable or out of date sources.  My observation of the present has tainted my ability to fully trust the people who recorded the past, and those who pretend to be experts on history, when they could simply be experts in a recorded perception of history, filtered by their own limitations and perceptions of history, as many conduct piggyback research and rely on the previous work of others, which may not be entirely reliable.

Now you are getting into the realms of Descartes, who distrusted everything except his own perceptions and ended up with the only thing he could trust, which were his thoughts: "I think, therefore I am".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Wasn't there some controversy because somebody took extracts from Hitler's Mein Kampf and inserted them in their book and it was peer reviewed and accepted.  e.g.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

There are regular reports of people submitting false data to try to get positive peer reviews to discredit academics. It is very underhand. There is also an interesting technique used by serious academics to put something obviously false in their papers, (most easily Googled if you want to learn more are "map traps".) These are placed to catch plagiarists.

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Travis isn't even a astrophysicist. His specialty is optics.

And he's a lying sack of ****.

Your comments are somewhat misleading and certainly a character assassination that is unwarranted as I see it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Your comments are somewhat misleading and certainly a character assassination that is unwarranted as I see it.

Taylor's education: 

Quote

Taylor earned a B.S. in electrical engineering from Auburn University in 1991, before going on to study at University of Alabama, Huntsville where he earned a MS in physics in 1994, a PhD in optical science and engineering in 1999, and a MSE in mechanical and aerospace engineering in 2001. He then completed a MS in astronomy in 2004 at the University of Western Sydney before earning a second PhD from University of Alabama, Huntsville in aerospace engineering in 2012.

A Master's Degree IS NOT a PhD, so he has no Doctorate in Physics or Astronomy which is the requirement to be called an Astrophysicist IIRC. 

cormac

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Your comments are somewhat misleading and certainly a character assassination that is unwarranted as I see it.

Why? Do you like that scam artist? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Herodotus' travel histories, finding them accurate. The Bible is a valuable historical book, alongside other reliable documents and journals by impartial travelers and observers of time, nations, and people. What they all share is the neutrality of the writer. I remain skeptical of scholars translating epics and wary of depictions documented by kings and rulers, as they often reflect biases and egocentric perspectives.

I won't trust anything coming from Holywood depicting historical events and the medieval times were far different than whatever they show in those movies .

Edited by qxcontinuum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

images (2).jpeg

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could SpaceX's simultaneous launch of four rockets from four different pads be a crucial step towards revolutionizing space travel, or does it raise concerns about the potential risks and environmental impact?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.