Is it Right to Categorize The Past as Valid (but, as a whole essays

Is it Right to Categorize The Past as Valid (but, as a whole essays This is an extremely controversial question, however, I believe that it is correct to say that the past is valid. In contrast it is probably unknowable because we are forced to believe the documentation, which people have recorded in the past if we want to learn about history. This documentation may not be completely correct in any case, it may be biased, or it may be impartial. Pictures may be taken out of context and people may be misquoted. I believe what I generally hear about the past, but only if I think it is an objective view, from a textbook. I would debate something that Hitler said about foreign affairs because I would think he is being biased, but only because I am able to see with hindsight that he has lied about things in the past. I would categorize history as invalid because the evidence we are proposed with may not always be correct or applicable. In respect to this, history is a form of knowledge because we are constantly learning about it and any information we acc umulate in our minds becomes knowledge. Historical knowledge and historical truth are two completely different things. I do not generally believe in historical truth, however, there are two truths. For example, it is historical truth that world war two existed; however, it may not be historical truth why. Documents and evidence may be incorrect and so you cannot know what the truth is. However, historical knowledge is not like historical truth at all, it is knowledge you have accumulated about the past. ...