You know what I think most people don’t realize, is that historians job is to argue. We tell stories, true,. But the stories themselves are implicit arguments against or in support of the prior generation. https://twitter.com/calhistorian/status/1307821414385201152">https://twitter.com/calhistor...

We argue about what matters in the present, through the lens of the past. We argue about what past perspectives, stories, and avenues of thought are most relevant to get the most out of the present and future.

History will never be written because it is not the past. It is our view of the past. Our perspective. It will always change. It will aldehyde shift with the current generation. Aggregation of facts, yes, will build. But interpretations will never solidify.

Interestingly the artifacts of the past will always be in flux as some are destroyed whiled others are discovered. But the weight of the discipline is to argue with ITSELF AND to argue with the present on What is significant about the past.

The argument is the core and the crux. We argue to refine. We argue to challenge. We argue to explore. In that way, it is little different from science. As John Locke and many others argued, through community engagement and exploration in any topic....

We can arrive at a “common” sense. A common truth by which we can understand the world.