The account of how History is presented in popular culture and even in academic works is poor.This is also true in general culture of news reporting as well.The problem with humanities has always been its presentation of facts without working out on the proper language first. By comparison, science and maths figured out a better language in which facts find their place . This is so because facts are abducted into certain agendas or sometimes certain facts are denied their due relevance. This also makes one question for example, how historians have come to conclusions one way or other. Are some of their results a product of certain personal prejudice or out of some desire for creating a larger national project?. All this is due to lack of numerical values while presenting their work . It is also the case that a lot of our understanding is also subject to discovery of new evidence as well. This again makes people suspicious . A better way to present data and further the understanding in popular culture and even in academia is to present all theories,facts within a Bayesian paradigm and people be taught the alternative theories, the facts as they stood a hundred years ago and how the facts have changed over time and different theories have been losing strength . This takes one away from confrontation between different ideologies to one of analysis.
Presenting things this way helps further everyone’s understanding and sidestepping ideological faultlines in academia and popular culture as well. The other thing that could be added to is the costs of persisting with certain ideas or ideologies. The unique claim that only certain ideas led to violence etc also leads to counter charges and hence forth. Instead one could present the costs of all ideas and ideologies .The costs of taking certain course of action and the potential repercussions. Only when one forces a non partisan language couched in numbers on all do we change the way one sees things. If everyone presented their views in this way, of assigning permutations and combinations of various happenings and then to whittle them down based on data available does it lead to non ideological acceptance of various ideas. The benefit of this method is that it forces all opponents to give a probability score to not only their idea but to ideas of others as well. This is the advantage of science, where scientists give out the various possible explanations to something and then subsequent data is used to figure things out and even change models.
The world is a place where low probability events happen fairly regularly. And the costs of each of these events would be different. And one can do a cost analysis of these events and whether they are worth pursuing. And one more advantage of this idea is that it leads to tests of one kind or other to see whether an idea is working out as their ideologues claim or otherwise. This brings forth people to come forward to have their ideas be put to test In order for people to show that their ideas are indeed working, they need to show evidence on a timely basis. This would remove much need for bickering. Every group needs to show some evidence for both .That their ideas are working and also that the costs of their ideas are limited. A few examples would be to present our understanding of Hellenic knowledge of mechanics had Antikythera mechanism not been discovered. Or how much our knowledge would have been lost about Indian history had Arthashastra been lost.And the number of available independent sources of Arthashastra surviving to present day.Or how divergent would our understanding of Indian mathematics be if Bakhshali manuscript did not survive.All this would provide an empirical probabilistic view of looking at our history and also our present place in our world.And that hope is that it would create a more intrinsically informative understanding of our world.