>>10939061>If its that easy to falsify history, then there would be no consensus. We have a consensus. So you're wrong.That's a logical fallacy. Also we don't have consensus, all the other interpretations besides the official one are either ridiculed or ignored. And it's not like in physics where there's a reason to call other interpretations pseudoscience. In history all the interpretations are equally baseless and fundamentally biased because either way that's just beliefs. There's no hard data in history
>History has a ground truthChristianity also has ground truth. Which is based on believe. This is not scientific. All history is based on believe and should not be taken in any other way than mythos or religion
>>10939069>archeological evidenceThat is easy to falsify, remove or misinterpret due to lack of data or because of bias.
>hypothesisthat is based on nothing but those kind of 'evidence' that is easy to falsify, remove or misinterpret due to lack of data or because of bias
