Myth: Observation of the facts is the first step in the scientific method.
Correction: A very large number of facts exist. No researcher attempts to collect them all. The researcher comes to a question with some knowledge that will guide how they decide to select this or that fact. The researcher has a hypothesis in mind that they want to test or prove and that intention will guide what facts they select to work with. Even if there is no hypothesis in mind, the researcher will have in mind some broad framework of an idea that will determine what probably will be the relevant facts.
Implication: A flat earther, a Christian fundamentalist, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, . . . . they will all point to facts to demonstrate their beliefs. The reason you may not agree with how they interpret those facts or the conclusions they draw from them is because they have a different hypothesis or belief-system that is not being made clear to you. Nothing is to be gained by accusing someone of being "pig headed" or "wilfully ignorant" or "intellectually dishonest" -- unless one can show that they have clear evidence that they are not being honest with their own world-view or belief-system. Someone's working hypothesis might give different weight to certain facts, or different interpretations of them from the one you have. Such disagreements are not signs of dishonesty or stupidity.
Myth: History is about the search for the facts of what happened and once discovered will be objectively true for all time.
Correction: New questions about ourselves are always arising as our society inevitability changes. That will always lead to new questions we ask of the past. We will always see the past in new ways as we ourselves change and learn more about ourselves. While certain facts are true, by themselves they have no meaning until they are placed within a narrative, and narratives will always be subject to interpretation. Example: one history book will say the American Civil War was about states rights; another will say it was to end slavery. To understand the difference, see above's discussion of the myth of "observation of facts".
Resolution? If in the light of the above there can be no single "objective truth" then what's the point of any discussion? The point is to undertake research with a clear view of our own motives, values, interests, and to be constantly aware of how our own motives, values, interests are guiding us in our selection of certain facts and rejection of others and in our interpretation of them.
Ditto for how we engage with other theories and interpretations. We are not dealing only with the facts and reasoning that we see in print before us, but also with a certain theory or belief-system that has determined those facts and arguments. A good researcher will be self-aware and make those things explicit. If they are not clear, the critics have a right to ask for those belief systems that led to those interpretations etc. But they don't have a right to call them "fucking idiots".
