Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events
as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to
make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.


My approach requires proof to establish fact...and there's substantial physical evidence, proof and fact - that eg; WW1 and WW2
actually happened even though I did not eye-witness those wars taking place.

The Romans were in the UK, Africa, etc ,as a matter of fact. proven by the combination of Roman records,
remaining Roman structures and vast number of recovered relics they left behind from 400 yrs of occupation.

...so how does my approach ' invalidate all history as fact'..??


Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.... on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history.


I would say professors use conventional overwhelming proof to establish fact, not subjective religious type faith.
we know the Romans existed and where they occupied, and the proof is available here and now , not locked up
in some mysterious faith yet to reveal its alleged proof.

-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.