Most people think that being knowledgeable about history means knowing historical facts.
Who founded a dynasty? When did a war begin? Who won a particular battle? When did an emperor die? What treaty was signed?
These things matter. But knowing historical facts is no more equivalent to understanding history than memorizing the periodic table is equivalent to understanding science.
Scientific literacy is not merely knowing scientific facts. It is knowing how scientific claims are investigated.
I would argue that historical literacy should be understood in much the same way.
Historical literacy means knowing how to interrogate historical claims.
It means asking:
What is the evidence?
How reliable is it?
What alternative explanations are possible?
Are we confusing correlation with causation?
Have relevant variables been omitted?
Are we selectively examining evidence that confirms what we already believe?
Are we accepting a claim merely because an authority made it?
And perhaps most importantly: What evidence would cause…
