[hef19898]

History is absolutely true, factually true at that. Facts are sometimes hard to come by, heck some facks of modern history are still classified, but that does not give people carte blanche to make up stuff as they go...

Like yeah, he was in an accident, media misreported it. Thing is so, how comes he, and the women, never knew who was at fault? Insuramce sure did some investigation as did police. Not knowing the facts, and coming to conclusions based on feelings, is the problem. But it doesn't mean history is wrong...

[rgrieselhuber]

And if he was driving recklessly that fact doesn’t change simply because the other driver also wasn’t paying attention and didn’t blame him for it. Past mistakes are also painful to remember but the best way to deal with them is to acknowledge the reality and then change what you need to in your character to make sure we don’t repeat them.

[rhaway84773]

To some extent what you’re disagreeing about is linguistics. Is history the actual events that took place or our knowledge of events that took place. And to be honest, there’s also a question of whether there’sa difference because what we don’t know about the past might as will not have happened.

[ttonkytonk]

History is true, but the history anyone knows is selective, a mental model, often guessed or interpreted, and usually secondhand information.

[hef19898]

The worst historical accounts, if lookrd at without context, are first hand ones... Those are the most selective and subjective takes you can have.

[mrguyorama]

Which is why nobody considers it good practice to do anything with a SINGLE first hand source.

[pixl97]

Thermodynamics is true, everything else is an interpretation.

[jvm___]

Reality is true, but the reality anyone knows is selective, a mental model, often guessed or interpreted, and usually secondhand information.

[mistermann]

Is "the reality anyone knows" not also part of greater aggregate reality though (conflicting with reality is true), or is it an ontological component of something else?