Considering how much disinfo is floating around in our technological age of easily accessible information, how can we be sure that historical accounts are accurate? Since the information was more tightly controlled in the past than is possible now, if anything, past history is many times less accurate than the information future generations can gather from our era. Having said that, can we not conclude that the study of history, being a study of lies and myths, simply a waste of time? Some argue this to be the case. I seriously hope you didn't major in history.
>internet makes academic study of history less credible
What are you on about m8
Get out of your mom's basement once in a while
>>888657
>Since the information was more tightly controlled in the past than is possible now, if anything, past history is many times less accurate than the information future generations can gather from our era.
There's a lot of assumptions packed into this one thing.
Also you also assume that lies and myths aren't worthy of study in their own right.
>>888657
Historians prefer to work with sources that were produced without political intention, like births and deaths rolls, or monestary accounting tables.
We also spend 10 years a historian training them how to read for bias ("hermeneutics" or "reading").
>>888703
Isn't it worrying though, that the average person gets their history from entertainers that are self professed non historians like Dan Carlin and John Green?
>>889496
Or even worse, high school teachers.
Or even worse still, 4chan.
