Removed. Your question about the Dark Ages is a good one. Your "bonus question" could potentially also be a good one with some editing, but is really a distraction from the main question.
Please do resubmit the Dark Ages question. Send us a modmail if you want some advice cleaning up the revisionist history question.
I believe it has, although that view is still widely held. However, it being THE prominent view, saying it is the correct one gets you no publicity, but taking the counter view that it WASN'T makes you stand out.
I personally believe that is how many revisions start - the standard accepted view based on the majority of work becomes a stereotype (the "Dark Ages" was a time of little to no advancement of scientific thought along the lines of Greek thinking in Western Europe) which morphs into "Things went BACKWARDS because of this" due to the rediscovery of Aristotle and Plato in the 13th and 14th centuries, which brought forth the Renaissance.
However, the truth lies between "little to no scientific advancement along the Greek lines" and "Western Europe went backwards." Yes, here were few scientific advancements in theory, but their were many more practical inventions that, when looked at today, you say, "Now, how the heck didn't those brilliant Greeks figure this out????" More of a common sense advancement, an everyday, practical, technological advancement rather than only through esoteric thought processes.
For example, the stirrup. Really? That's SO obvious. A water wheel on a fall, that lets the water's extra speed from dropping through gravity makes the wheel turn a larger millstone then the under flow water wheel could possibly do. The spinning wheel over the hand spindle. A wheelbarrow. A wheeled plow. A horse collar that doesn't choke the horse. These technological advancements of the "Dark Ages" show that it wasn't just "western Europe went backwards." And part of this maybe creating a strawman argument of "we went backwards", destroying it, rather than the noted conclusion that "little to no scientific advancements along the lines of Greek thinking" occurred. Which may still be valid.
Tl;dr Historians may take the counter view to the consensus to be noticed. May create false argument similar to consensus POV to make point.