A Real Historian?

Although we should always be vigilant against the "Big Lie of Goebbels" ilk, nothing becomes true or ceases being true in history because of what a Mr. Irving or anyone else might say or believe. Only the very gullible could be swayed by an assertion of fact made without evidence to support the supposition. History is not a religion sustained by mere creed.

What is history? It is the recording of past events, whose happening may be established by the evidence which may be testimonial i.e. the record given by a witness to the event or the record as revealed archival research or archeologically. History is a systematic body of knowledge i.e. a science. It should not be conjectural i.e. forming judgments or opinions on the basis of incomplete or inconclusive information.

To me, history is not to be considered static and immutable but to be subject to constant review and reassessment, should convincing evidence be presented which conclusively refutes the present knowledge. As in all sciences it should be a churning body of knowledge in which previous conclusions turn out to be false in the light of new facts or information. If after being vetted by the historians and rigorous scrutiny, the newly discovered evidence passes the sniff test, then history must be rewritten or revised to accord with the new findings.

Sadly, history is at best an inexact science- more akin to economics, where the vagaries of the human element often confound and distort the economist's projections. The biases and prejudices of the observer of the event being recorded, or the subjective perceptions of the historian interpreting the historical evidence of the event may skew the history - at least for while.