Your response to a simple fact about historical research, about the availability of primary and secondary sources, is to say that is ALL historical research are the result of interpretations and historical records are unreliable?
Because of your inability to come to terms with some accepted facts, you're going all post modernist and saying it's all socially constructed. Interesting rejoinder to say the least. Entirely unproductive and ineffective as an argument, but sadly, hardly unique.
Do you have anything useful to write, besides the empirical equivalent of "if I didn't see it, then it didn't happen"?
Your response to a simple fact about historical research, about the availability of primary and secondary sources, is to say that is ALL historical research are the result of interpretations and historical records are unreliable?
Because of your inability to come to terms with some accepted facts, you're going all post modernist and saying it's all socially constructed. Interesting rejoinder to say the least. Entirely unproductive and ineffective as an argument, but sadly, hardly unique.
Do you have anything useful to write, besides the empirical equivalent of "if I didn't see it, then it didn't happen"?
Doubling down then, but this time adding a dash of gnosticism. Oh, do go on....