The Neglect Of Primary Sources

No consistent rationalist believes that historical documentation actually proves that the events referenced therein happened.  This is as true of the most widely reported events as much as it is true of those with only one account, as truth is not revealed or proven by agreement of any sort.  There are still stronger and weaker types of historical documents.  If a person living through or shortly after something writes information about the occurrence down, their testimony qualifies as a primary source.  It is by all appearances written directly about a historical person or circumstance.  Historians of centuries that follow will never be able to write primary sources about what happened long before their birth.  At most, they can write secondary sources that react to other historical writings, stories, and claims.

Miscellaneous historical claims go unchallenged in part because people tend to take it for granted (or just assume, in other words) that secondary sources and hearsay from their social lives accurately represent the claims of primary sources as they simultaneously assume that primary sources must be accurate.  These dual assumptions are not only irrational just because they are assumptions even aside from the unprovability of everything about past except logical necessities (like the fact that nothing logically impossible has ever happened), but they also leave people ripe for only accepting historical documents that are consistent with some presupposed belief about history.  In other words, assumptions beget assumptions!

How often do people--including supposed giants of historical "knowledge" (as if events like wars and expeditions can be proven to have happened just because a document or person says so) like professors and "regular" people who regularly read about history for the sake of pleasure and curiosity--actually even reference primary sources, the original documents about which later historians and interested parties read, reflect on, write about, and discuss?  Many times, people talk about later documentation of the initial documentation as if it was just as strong a piece of evidence in favor of an event having happened as the writings of the first author.

This is true of numerous historical events other than more major ones like the death of Jesus.  Name almost any historical figure or event, and almost no one will even be able to allude to any primary sources that mention the subject.  Assertions without any sort of rationalistic epistemological analysis are the norm.  At most, it would be common for people to appeal to some contemporary teacher or author they subjectively respect and leave primary sources out of the conversation completely.  It is not that everyone needs to read every primary source about major world events, but that many people are comfortable exaggerating the importance of historical information without even looking to the most central documents about an issue.

History is largely of very little abstract or practical significance one way or another.  Core logical truths are unaffected by what events led to the present era, and the nature of daily life is hardly changed by the broad points of history, much less by becoming familiar with unverifiable historical information.  This is because logical axioms, what follows from a basic concept, and the general needs of daily life do not hinge on what may or may not have happened centuries ago.  Yes, some events can have a greater societal impact than others; yes, an event like the resurrection of Jesus has far more significance than history as a whole.  However, one's life unfolds no matter what things came before it.  None of this changes how primary sources are more relevant to historical epistemology than later summaries in compilations.