I understand that this may come across as "babby's first existential dilemma". But this is honestly something that concerns me.
When I am reading history, how do I know that I am reading truth? How could I prove, for instance, that the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 actually happened? Or that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC? We have to go off of historical accounts, but aren't accounts always influenced by propaganda? And the person writing it down always has their own agenda, do they not?
Whenever I'm reading history, there's always this nagging feeling that it may not be 100% true and that certain parts of the story have been colored or altered. Is there any way to get over this fear?
>>2764756
Holocaust did not happen
>>2764756
its never 100% true
you have to find more than one reliable source , which takes a long and arduous time to do
then you take those sources and you make your own assumption
>>2764756
Why do you believe anything anyone says?
This is why you gather multiple accounts + examine the "before and after" so you can be fairly sure that it DID happen
Things don't just happen for no reason at all
>>2764756
No it's a good fear to keep. Always think about the sources you are reading what their biases where at the time of writing it. Also, generally speaking there are different levels of certainty. If something has multiple sources and physica l evidence backing it up then things are more certain. If your only source is a personal memoir then odds are what you are reading is very uncertain.
Also, remember the majority of stuff you read isn't first hand so there is another lair of biases to get through before you read anything.