---

Try the same methodology for the 8th century and see where it gets you!
also regarding

---

So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself?

---

If, sometime in the future, large quantities of data having been missing for a long time, people did this, yeah, the history as recorded and known by people would change. But of course the reality of "what actually happened" would not have changed, only the fact that in the absence of the data people would come to alternative conclusions and promulgate them.

---

But this change in perspective would be a result of evidence, not because of cultural influences.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Oh but its consensus not democracy.

---

The significant difference between the two is....? More people supporting it?

If you reject history as science, you must also reject crime scene investigation as science. After all, the crime has occurred in the past, so according to your logic, no rational conclusion based on evidence is possible in any case file.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

I do not argue that only science is rational.

---

I agree.

But the key thing here is that you argue that history is simultaneously (1) not science yet (2) a study of events in the empirical world, which has these absurd implications. History would then be a form of pseudoscience and not a single observation or piece of evidence could be inconsistent with any given historical model (if it was possible, history would be science). So all we are left with is essentially cultural bigotry since the empirical part of history has been stripped naked.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)