History Learning Debate

Some people think it matters to properly learn history, instead of urban myths.

ffs, to find out what figures from the past thought and how they felt about the world, maybe we read some of their books, we will get the context. Don't prompt or train LLM to do it and consider it the hottest thing since MCP. Besides, what's the point? To teach younger generations a made up perspective of historic figures? Who guarantees the correctness/factuality? We will have students chatting with made up Hitler justifying his actions. So much AI slop everywhere.

Yes it is natural to learn from history.This is why it is called school and has been happening for hundreds of thousands years to say the least.What you seem to confuse is the lack of interest for some people to read the historic details and adjust to the present context they want to compare against.

ChatGPT can't provide primary resources, and given its training material, can't put primary resources it has been given into a valid historical context. History as a discipline is safe.What you're thinking of as history is just a collection of facts. And it'll lie about those.

This kind of purist attitude is so self-defeating in my opinion. The choices are "make history interesting/easily digestible/accessible" or "not have people care", unfortunately "make people care more about history" doesn't just happen. I'm sorry but I'm not motivated at all to pick through old/inaccessible texts trying to pull out some historical significance but I'll gladly watch a documentary/YT series/TV docuseries th

If you are interested in this topic but would like to understand how historians think about things, look into writing about Historiography and Historical Memory. This person appears to just be some guy who describes himself as an entrepreneur and TED speaker.The way we understand the past is a deep topic that is analyzed and discussed by actual professionals constantly. Better to read their writing than this kind of stuff, IMO.

I agree strongly with the Author's issues with presenting history in this manner. History is a living document of clues that are merely interpreted by us- very little is fact.I've been studying Egyptology for about 6 years now and it's amazing what perspectives have changed in that time. We're even starting to see stories now that are challenging the "Out of Africa" theory. Whenever I hear a teacher/lecturer describe something historical as fact, it makes me cringe because so much is left to

You seem to think the author is writing this paper with the goal of espousing a viewpoint or tying it back to current affairs. It's possible to write and read about history purely for the interest.

Thank you Sal for great videos! You are inspiring me to study maths.I have a Ba in history and agree with the criticism raised in the article, however I also think it is a problem that many people dont even have a basic scaffold of world events.History is about making choices, what to say and what not to say, and the way to say it, it is not merely about being familiar with major world events. What is a major world event? Lets go with WW2 , then when you dig into WW2, what would you say is

"History isn't perfect" is not a good reason to avoid doing history. Historians are all well aware of these facts.