My brother just gave me the t-shirt in the attached photo, and it reminded me that one of the goals of my blog is to explore "Why history? and perhaps more specifically "Why legal history?"
I want to start broadly and simply, with the first question. . . . then I will proceed to get more "granular."
So, to begin, history--its research and its writing and the reading of it--is of fundamental importance, more and more, because the discipline requires its practitioners to footnote their work.
A book or an article by a historian is generally trustworthy, or at least highly worthy of respect and consideration, because in its footnotes (in articles) and endnotes (in books) the author cites the evidence relied upon for the statements made in the writing.
That is not to say that footnoting makes a text ipso facto reliable; but it is a huge step in that direction, the mere act of providing the author's sources.
The point for the moment is: the reasonably literate or general reader can (if he or she wishes) check and test the assertions, the claims, the arguments made in the historical book or article by referring to the foot/endnotes . . . in stark comparison to the almost always unverifiable "texts" or "messages" contained in so very many internet sites, blogs, and postings and in the oral statements of angry cable-channel pundits and radio personalities that cannot.