Sorry Dubious, but Lausten is correct. I’ve met quite a few exceedingly intelligent people who seemed incapable of seeing the logic of the history of economics, power, and human “nature”* (really behavior). It appears that we are all exposed to a number of premises when we are very young, and they become part of our “truth”, whether or not they match reality.
*Human nature is one of those premises that implies humans are programmed to act in certain ways. It ignores all those who manage to act quite differently from what the person’s argument is.
Thanks Occam. In my experience studying history, and reading critiques of people like David Barton, it’s different than other sciences. If you are dealing with electricity and make a statement, I can find a scientific law or a specific entry in a book that is agreed upon by all electricians and I’ll know if you are right or wrong. If you argue, I’ll say sure, go ahead, lay that screwdriver across that battery, just wait until I’m behind this concrete wall.
When dealing with history, if you have not studied a vast amount of source data in the era that is being discussed, it is impossible to refute what someone is saying. We have to rely on authorities. Watch any YouTube on “The New World Order”, you’ll hear Presidents saying things that sound conspiratorial. If you don’t know the context of the words, the purpose of them, the intended audience and the general knowledge of everyone at the time, you could make those words mean something they don’t. Religion relies on this. If you are indoctrinated into believing the world is a certain way, then your lens into history will be filtered through that.