How certain can we really be of history?

**Homo Insapiens** · 07-16-2021, 10:51 AM

I’m summarising and generalising here of course, but I hope my gist can be communicated clearly.
I’m far from an expert here, and have enough trust in experts who often spend their whole careers and lives studying history using their latest techniques and knowledge. Yet some simple thought experiments are enough to make me never certain.
I like to think there’s a clear distinction between things being possible, likely, and certain. Being certain is when you know that say the sky is blue, a bird flies in front of you or the wind moves the leaves. Hearsay is when someone else tells you those things. Likelihood is when you and others can’t see those things happening, but are quite sure they are due to laws of science and probability and such.
Of historical facts, events, figures. etc. because I sometimes like to think of much of history as basically an advanced or elaborate form of hearsay. This is in contrast to science which is repeatedly testable and tangible at the moment for all to observe. Science and law seems to be quite aware that hearsay isn’t a perfect system for transmitting knowledge, it can be prone to bias and errors.
I’ve something wondered, especially the further back we go in time, and for less important events and figures, whether even important and influential figures and events could have been even at least partially fabricated later from their purported time periods, for a variety of reasons. I believe some things we could be fairly certain about, like the general technology, fashion, customs, general knowledge of time periods because of how they’re widely depicted visually and documented. But I think more specific events and figures we can’t be as certain. Of course the more important an event and figure was, the more influential and well known they’re bound to be during their moment as well throughout time. But people have always had motives, be that religious, political, pride, prejudice or just about anything etc. this no doubt creeps into record and information keeping. How certain can we really be of the past? Remember, certainty should be distinguished from probability. And if we can’t be 100% certain of the past, what can we really be certain of? Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that our favourite historical figures and events might not actually be real?

**Homo Insapiens** · 07-16-2021, 10:54 AM

I’m summarising and generalising here of course, but I hope my gist can be communicated clearly.
I’m far from an expert here, and have enough trust in experts who often spend their whole careers and lives studying history using their latest techniques and knowledge. Yet some simple thought experiments are enough to make me never certain.
I like to think there’s a clear distinction between things being possible, likely, and certain. Being certain is when you know that say the sky is blue, a bird flies in front of you or the wind moves the leaves. Hearsay is when someone else tells you those things. Likelihood is when you and others can’t see those things happening, but are quite sure they are due to laws of science and probability and such.
Of historical facts, events, figures. etc. because I sometimes like to think of much of history as basically an advanced or elaborate form of hearsay. This is in contrast to science which is repeatedly testable and tangible at the moment for all to observe. Science and law seems to be quite aware that hearsay isn’t a perfect system for transmitting knowledge, it can be prone to bias and errors.
I’ve something wondered, especially the further back we go in time, and for less important events and figures, whether even important and influential figures and events could have been even at least partially fabricated later from their purported time periods, for a variety of reasons. I believe some things we could be fairly certain about, like the general technology, fashion, customs, general knowledge of time periods because of how they’re widely depicted visually and documented. But I think more specific events and figures we can’t be as certain. Of course the more important an event and figure was, the more influential and well known they’re bound to be during their moment as well throughout time. But people have always had motives, be that religious, political, pride, prejudice or just about anything etc. this no doubt creeps into record and information keeping. How certain can we really be of the past? Remember, certainty should be distinguished from probability. And if we can’t be 100% certain of the past, what can we really be certain of? Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that our favourite historical figures and events might not actually be real?