Indians are charged with the lack of a sense of history. If we really look at what history has by and large done so far, we will really not be very proud of it. When we read historical literature, we see heavy reliance on linguistic, archaeological findings, astronomical data, genetics and other tangible things either individually or in combination of two or more of the above as evidence. These are taken as supporting evidences for conjectures about our past to be ultimately almost irrevocably accepted as historical facts, unless convincingly felled. But one has to employ the same method refute them, otherwise it is normally not acceptable in the community of researchers. This phenomenon has almost become like a dogma. As such despite their incompleteness, these methods are almost thrust upon us and serve as some kind of tools to implement an "epistemological anarchy"; where you are not allowed to change the rules of the game, borrowing from Paul Karl Feyerabend, an Austrian-born philosopher of science, who went on to profess that that all science is an anarchic enterprise, not a nomic one.
