historiography

This story was introduced to me in high school to illustrate historiography, so I get what you mean.

There's so much data out there that any position can be supported by such-and-such's study or so-and-so's historiography.

This leads to the more troubling question of the state of historiography at large.

Unless your degree concerns historiography, your time would be much better spent elsewhere.

I've found presentism to be an all but impossible concept for those whose ideology drives their historiography.

This view of historiography goes back about two millenia years in China.

It makes me think about the process of historiography, in general.

These distinctions are standard in both historiography and journalism.

Are we still living through the effects of a post-colonial interpretation of historiography?

Ah, I see this is the Isaac Asimov approach to Islamic historiography.

The question of historiography of India.

A good outline of the issues in historiography of India can be found in Mathematics in India by Kim Plofker[1], who was trained both as a mathematician and Sanskrit scholar.

A Google search on "Indian historiography" (a search I just did) will disclose some of the competing claims.

While one might be able to give a fair and balanced take on "non-optimal alternatives," I frankly believe that a bad idea, or at least bad historiography, doesn't deserve a very big seat at the table of discussion.

> developing and understanding frameworks for grouping historical events This is called "historiography", and were it more commonly taught in US primary and secondary schools, fewer Americans would think of "history" as being dull -- an endless stream of bare facts lacking context is indeed dull as dishwater; it's in the drawing and analysis of narrative that all the interest lies.

Historiography and inference are fine and valuable things, but inflicting one's conclusions on others is a project best approached with a maximum of trepidation.