Why are so many people so easily convinced about things in history as "fact?"?

Question

I notice that many people when they answer a question like to put down as their source "the history channel" like that is some real valid source or something. Did it ever occur to you that maybe a show that is on one of the 5 media cable outlets maybe lie?

Answer 1

i'll never put down the brothers grimm again

Answer 2

I certainly wouldn't accuse any of these media channels of lying. However, you do have a point to a certain extent. While there are, obviously, many 'facts' in history that are exactly that - facts, there are also plenty of things about which historians argue, debate and disagree. Sometimes they are the most trivial things; but the entire process of history is to examine the evidence and try to establish what happened - that is surprisingly difficult (even for subjects such as the Holocaust, by the way).

So, while the History Channel does not "lie", as such, it is true that one should not blindly accept everything they say ... because there'll always be someone round the corner who has a different take on things, using much the same evidence.

Oh, and they *do* make genuine mistakes, too, which is another reason not to use them as your only source of historical knowledge.

Answer 3

Well, no one would believe anything if in order to verify a fact we all individually had to, for example, do down to Auschwitz, dig up whatever remains were still there, personally rifle through all the documents and belongings, make an estimation of the death rates etc. Even the History Channel employs historians to verify facts, yes these historians may have their own opinions which conflict with other historians but you must remember most of them will have years of experience as academics. You also have to consider that if a person has a really radical, stupid theory based on little if no verifiable fact (such as Irving, or those people who claim jesus and mary magdalene had children and she ran away to france etc - making a fortune out of gullible people but who have no respect from the academic community), they will be shouted down by serious scholars.

Answer 4

If something is reported as history, especially in media it must be able to back itself up with sources and facts. If it is not purely fact it must show a disclaimer as being a reenactment, or a dramatization and even then the facts are there. Speculative history also must show a disclaimer. If a channel pro-ports to show history there's a good chance it is. What particulars do you have as proof of something on the History Channel being a lie? Write the F.C.C. and ask them to investigate.

Answer 5

ok let me get this straight...the history channel has a WW2 show. they say we won (we did by the way you non loving history freak). I say Hey! that is a fact! The history channel has a UFO special on. I say Hey! What a crock! Get a grip kid. Here in the free world we are allowed to have opinions. We are also allowed to be wrong. Some of us paid attention in school. That is why we like the history channel. Not the shopping network.

Answer 6

History is written by the winners, but in a lot of cases that's the only history there is. There are far too many book burnings in history; what you see on the History Channel may not be true, but it's probably all we know for now.

Answer 7

Lots of people simply don't understand what a proper source is and are naive as to finding facts (well as far as we can ever say something is fact).

It's easy for people like me who've studied history and handled primary sources to know a good source from a rotten one but a lot of people just don't care and are wiling to believe any old rumour.

I think that TV stations are great for informing people who have a general interest in a subject but they are terrribly lacking when it comes to producing a fully rounded argument and are of little use to experts and academics.

Answer 8

In modern times there are many people and even nations that for different reasons, try to hide camouflage or change events that happened some or many years ago. wether its because they are ashamed, feel guilty or just does not fit with their present status in human respect and democracy.

For example Turks don´t like to be reminded that during World War I they committed a Holocaust against Christians and Armenians, killing thousands of them.

Chinese don´t like to be reminded that Mao´s Cultural revolution was one of the gravest mistakes among others of their government that is still in power.

Americans don´t like to be reminded that they caused the holocaust of the American Indians.

The Church doe not like to be remainded about the Inquisition, nor about the real reasons of the origins of Lutheranism.

And so on.

But in certain cases there are intellectually moldable and weak persons that are on sale to start spreading lies, to change history, according to the present needs of their contractors.

Nevertheless solid intellectual people are the majority in this world and I doubt we will fall under the influence of lower intellectual wacos.

The Truth will prevail.

Answer 9

I would rather believe the history channel, than some raving
lunatic that says he was kidnapped by aliens or something.
I can't say that it hasn't occured to me that the History Channel
might lie, but it's the same as reading a textbook. Except some
people prefer the t.v than the textbook.

Answer 10

Because people are too lazy to think. People like to believe that what they hear is the truth because it requires less cognitive effort. I wouldn't say it is lies - that is a strong word to use - but people shoudd remember that what they read or watch or hear is only one person's interpretation of events. If they want more understanding of a topic/event/etc then they should seek out further information especially information that argues against what is believed to be true. I mean take evolution for example, many people believe the theory of evolution to be scientific fact when in fact there are many flaws in the theory that need to be investigated

Answer 11

Could it be that the event happened and by the very nature of it already take place that it was a 'fact'. ....unless, of course, you're referring to revisionist histories, the "victors always getting to write the history books", the events taking place centuries after the event (eg, Jesus), ...best to look at the preponderence of the evidence before applying the 'fact' tag to history. If there's only one source, then its reasonable to be scepticle...