The first reason, both existential and epistemological, grows from the impossibility of knowing all that happened in the past. In addition to being beyond re-experiencing, no past event, whether as small in scale as an auto accident or as vast as a revolution, can be recorded in its entirety while taking place or understood in its entirety afterward. Only some, never all, evidence of an event—say reports of witnesses, physical remains, and films and sound recordings—remains behind, doesn’t deteriorate, or isn’t purposefully destroyed; and what does remain is a result of such factors as its collectors’ partialities, their speed and intent in saving it, their point of view when reporting it, and sheer accident. What’s missing would tell us more, but it doesn’t exist to do so. We’re thus left to interpret what remains as best we can by using all the evidence available and subjecting it to examination for authenticity, accuracy, and meaning. But since there are likely to be different ways to interpret the surviving evidence, the results of even the most experienced historians’ interpretations will often differ. That’s because each historian, indeed all people, will bring distinct interests, sensibilities, and minds to bear when they examine the same evidence. Here is where differences over interpretation—the opportunities for revisionist history—enter the picture. Whether they arise from disputes over evidence and what it means or, as is sometimes the case, from different social or ideological views, all such differences must be, as they always are, subjected to hard-headed examination by any and all who enter such interpretive battles over the past.

er. Those are the facts. But what do they mean? That independence was a summer event? That it came suddenly? That it capped at least 11 years of increasing turmoil? That it inaugurated five years of brutal warfare? And so on. Mere facts don’t have meaning. They must be given that meaning by human beings. And those human beings very well may disagree among themselves about their meaning. But, for many non-historians, disagreement among experts fits uneasily with their desire for certainty. Many condemn historians’ changing interpretations as evidence of political bias. Still others see challenges to historical orthodoxies as threats to the historical tales congruent with their political aims and thus to their power. They ask themselves, too, since historians themselves often don’t agree about the past, why anyone should have confidence in historians’ professional claims to be experts. Why should anyone cede to historians authority over what happened when those historians challenge what was long taught as gospel truth?  Of course, nothing requires people to cede anything to historians. But just as it’s best to hire a licensed electrician to wire a new house rather than to do it on your own or to visit an experienced orthopedic surgeon rather than a carpenter to set your broken leg, so it’s probably preferable to turn to an experienced historian for authoritative current understanding about a particular subject as well as knowledge about currently existing disagreements over it.  Professional historians view their roles and contributions in a different light than non-historians. They consider their debates not simply as intellectual exercises but as a contribution to understanding and to the welfare of an open society. To them, revisions in knowledge about the past serve society much as a gyroscope serves to help maintain a ship’s even keel. It’s their conviction that adjustments to existing knowledge, adjustments grounded as much in known evidence as in new thought and new perspectives, allow for the potential increase and deepening of knowledge about human existence for everyone. Historians take in stride the differences among themselves, try to learn from their interprofessional disputes, and endeavor to incorporate into their own investigations what makes the most sense to them. Most importantly, they’re of the strong conviction that battles over the past are inescapable because they’re hard-wired into human nature and existence. All of this means that rarely, if ever, can “Case Closed” be stamped on a historical subject.  But if no subject is immune from reconsideration, what about the widespread conviction that history can and should be objective in the sense of being an accurate and full account of what actually occurred? It’s likely to surprise most people that today’s historians believe that it can’t be. On what grounds do they believe that?

hen we do need to use a vehicle, they are cleaner and more fuel efficient than what we had in 2023 and they are powered by renewable electricity. We travel together with other people more often to reduce the number of individual vehicle trips taken. Some trips are shorter than they were 27 years ago, and there are now more options for people to work online. We have safer streets that promote independent travel for all ages and abilities and there are better health outcomes through increased levels of physical activity, improved air quality and reduced noise pollution. At this Auckland Conversations we explored the cooler transport future for Auckland: Wh

Modeling

timed performanc