"Established historical conclusion" versus "absolute truth"
historical conclusions remain open to revision if new evidence appears.
Example.
For centuries many historians believed Richard III murdered the princes.
Today historians still debate it because the evidence is incomplete.
By contrast,
the Earth orbiting the Sun is treated as a scientific fact based on repeated empirical confirmation.
History deals with human actions, intentions, and incomplete records. That is why historians generally avoid claiming "absolute truth."
Comments
Post a Comment