Is History True?

Those who are in Mr. Stiles' history classes have done this debate. It came down to a very interesting matter: define 'history', and define 'true'. So, I decided this debate was so interesting I had to carry it over here.

So... is history true? I'll do the yes side just because most people say no.

I think to some degree history is accurate. Things are recorded more-or-less accurately, with some bias. However, just because you believe in something and there is no evidence otherwise, it doesn't mean it's true. So even if all the textbooks say something, it doesn't mean it's true.

btw, this question was explored in the book 1984.

Nothing can be true. Only math can be proven, because math is theoretical. Everything else can be validated, but it is impossible to test a theory for every single case, that is, the infinite magnitude of cases possible to test for. For the most part, history can be validated (i.e. Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941). However, some claims made by historians are often educated guesses, and these can be found in a lot of text books. With these claims, the opinion of the majority counts. I will go against the majority here, and say that Pearl Harbor was caused by Baron von Battenberg.

excellent thought on what is true, Jon.

history seems to all fit together with the different nations and such, but really, it can't be proven, but its the most logical to accept it as true unless some one can just somehow prove all studies on all past wrong. For all I know you don't exist right now b/c I can't see you and if I could are you really "true" I would think so and therefore accept it unless some one proves otherwise, with that logic, history is true enough for me

History is not fully true if you think of it... there always could be bias in it but I for one believe in history

"history" does not exist, because the the universe in constantly being destroyed and rebuilt within the smallest unit of time, so any thing that happens in the "past" is in a different universe

Okay, that works.

I think history is true.
The events that happened, happened whether or not we know anything about it.
Our understanding of what happened will always be called into question, because we weren't there. Even if we were there, our purest observations are subject to our interpretation.

So I am curious, for this discussion are we defining "history" as what actually happened, or as the collective understanding of the most vocal and well published party?

I believe that history is true, to a certain point. I don't think that the world is one billion years old or whatnot, but things like egypt and babylon did happen.

Indiana_Bones wrote:I think history is true.
The events that happened, happened whether or not we know anything about it.
Our understanding of what happened will always be called into question, because we weren't there. Even if we were there, our purest observations are subject to our interpretation.

So I am curious, for this discussion are we defining "history" as what actually happened, or as the collective understanding of the most vocal and well published party?

I am thinking about history as in what is in the books, and I think that everything has happened, but the memories/writings/etc. are not accurate, even if you have been there.

I would say history is the records that we have of the past

Obviously it will be changed some from what really happened by time or something. An example would be the original bible or Torah I guess written in Hebrew and Greek or something like that. a lot of the stuff in that is translated differently. Therefore it has changed from what it originally was. Things like that can change the actual past records.

Personally, since we cannot prove anything to be true, I am willing to except that the past as we know it is true. whether it is excepted or not it doesn't change anything.

eclipse wrote:I believe that history is true, to a certain point. I don't think that the world is one billion years old or whatnot, but things like egypt and babylon did happen.

I suppose I believe that the Bible is true... history is indefinite.

Parts of history could be true. However, I think that some of it was made up or exaggerated in some books that historians found. So I guess I'm in the middle.

... In the middle of your face!!!!!!!!!!!!

My opinion: History can be true

Everything is an illusion especially time and if history occurs over time (which is an illusion) than history is an illusion. To wrap everything up a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

KillerBunny wrote:Everything is an illusion especially time and if history occurs over time (which is an illusion) than history is an illusion. To wrap everything up a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

Huh... Oh, I guess that kind of makes sense

Does it? Time may be relative, but how is it an illusion? Just because time occurs at different rates doesn't mean an observer can't go through it. However, the discrepancies that affect time (in my opinion) do not affect history. History is not the collection of all of time, it is merely the conceptualization of the events in humanity, a tiny section of time in a tiny section of the universe. The affects of relativity and everything like it don't really affect history. The only thing that changes history is us.

Time is an illusion because we perceive it to exist.

This is getting too scientific/mathematical

This is Master Chief, over and out.

Not everything we perceive is incorrect. Time is merely another phenomena. We perceive the sun rising, and that is not an illusion, it is just the earth going around the sun. Maybe we don't fully understand it, but it is not an illusion. I'm with Jon on this one.

What we perceive is the general picture of a Million, billion, trillion atoms arranged in ways that we describe using symbols and sounds (i.e. talking and writing).

Uh...

"Time is an illusion, lunchtime, doubly so ."
~Ford Prefect

Exactly!