Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The point being Hottentot is that in those first two cases there isn't really an accepted answer, much less an "ACCEPTED" answer .....unless lots of parameters are set out beforehand.
[snip]
Yeah I was helping one of my kids with some homework on WWI, her teacher had said it started on August 4th 1914.(see thats the old imperial hegemony at work  ) . I wonder if the OP thinks it started on April 6th 1917? |
These two paragraphs show a common problem encountered when discussing history. On one hand you are right and I agree: as soon as you say that something is "accepted", someone will give you a truckful of sources and arguments for why you are wrong, dumb and smell bad.
On the other hand, it is common to discuss history on "yes or no" basis. That's partly because people want it: they need "accepted" dates and theories so that they could be right and point out the others are wrong. The other part is that the school system at least in Finland reinforces this. When you are asked in an exam "when did war X start", you don't get points for saying "well it depends..." You give the date that was in the book. You get a good grade. You remember for the rest of your life that it was that date and woe to anyone who is wrong.
Now who makes these theories that get accepted and written in books? The historians do, and they discuss them among themselves. The stuff that gets written, analyzed and discussed in the academic world doesn't necessarily ever get published. Only once it gets published and becomes common to everyone, it becomes history in sense of the society. The society isn't interested in "well it depends", it wants yes or no answers. This is evident almost whenever a reporter is interviewing a professor.
This paradigm becomes accepted because at the moment it's the best we have. Unless someone challenges it convincingly enough and the science moves forward likes sciences do.