Historical study has practical value because historians spend their training identifying bias, self-interest, omission, and deception in the evidence people leave behind. That habit makes skepticism a method rather than a reflex. The important question is whether a source's claim survives comparison and context. In a lecture about ruses, the aside also explains why operational accounts from victors, defeated commanders, and institutions must be read critically.
Notable Point · 1:22:19-1:22:50
Historians are trained to test biased sources
The defense of historical training centers on recognizing partial, deceptive, or self-serving evidence rather than accepting a source at face value.