Surely, however, if a historian stated that 'so and so' died, it would be a fact?
Hi Shanks,
Here we are again.. But I don't think we need to start thus far back. A self-respecting historian is not content with mentioning that so-and-so died. He leaves that to a coroner. It's when the isolated facts are being put into some order, some connection, that the trouble starts (even before hypothesising about causes). And: Today you read in the news that, together with a well-known judge, his driver and his body-guard were killed by a bomb. But will this precision be preserved over the next 100 years? And should it? Which part will be kept as essential?