Eh, but some of the texts are pretty good at pointing out both useless as well as well liked rulers, and contains long lists of "Z, son of Y was king of X for K years, he did not fear $deity and was useless and died and his son was king after him", in between all the success stories.
Correlating them to other historic texts, filling in the missing parts, removing thing one doesn't care about etc is the job for historians.
I don't understand the high regard historians are being held given here. It is like just because they have extremely messy/biased data to deal with their conclusions are held in an even higher regard than that of science.
There's a whole discipline of experts who spend their whole lives studying this stuff. It's awful arrogant for an amateur to assume they're all full of shit.
Yes but the best people to judge what's garbage and what's not are the experts.
Look I'm done with this thread. I've made my point, and your comment history shows you only post this sort of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. You represent everything that's wrong with this site.
No, that is not how skepticism works. There is a humongous body of knowledge on the topic, and all of it is very well supported with an abundance of of evidence.
Being too lazy to visit a library and educate yourself on a topic is called "willful ignorance", not skepticism.
"nullius in verba" means you don't accept theories on authority alone. It means that you don't formulate a conception of gravity by thinking about elements for a while and then declaring that you figured it out, as Aristotle did, but by considering testable possibilities and performing experiments, as Newton did.
"nullius in verba" does NOT mean you can throw out all of Newton's work as "words words words" because you don't feel like reading it.
Correlating them to other historic texts, filling in the missing parts, removing thing one doesn't care about etc is the job for historians.