I'm not sure how to best phrase the question. I've looked through some of the previous links and though today's Monday Method's from u/sunagainstgold gave some help in finding sources, JSTOR reviews, and most recent releases, I don't think it get to what I'm looking for.
I'm currently reading Paris Reborn by Stephane Kirkland and I came across a small footnote. "*In this area, the ill-informed writings of Walter Benjamin especially have done considerable harm to the historical record." The paragraph in question is regarding the oft-cited theory (perhaps it is Bejamin's theory) that the wide streets of Second Empire Paris were created "primarily to allow troop movements against the people and unencumbered cannon fire."
This is what I thought was the reason why Haussmann widened the streets. In that chapter, Kirkland goes on to say that lots had to do with sanitary reasons, the poor, and easy access to the train stations for goods as well as people. Sure, perhaps Kirkland is enamoured with Haussmann but perhaps this is the correct view. I don't know better despite reading lots of French history and taking courses, etc.
This got me thinking about how am i to know between many possible historiographies? Is it squeakier wheels? Would I then have to go to primary sources? But surely, Benjamin (sorry to M. Benjamin if it's not his theory) also had primary sources. Do we then see which sources were used by whom? But I don't have time for this; I'm not a graduate student with access to primary sources or time to go through them all. How best to confront possible dubious historiographies?
Off the top of my head I can think of a few other instances where this may have already happened and has been remedied, such as with Richard III---or rather, I am led to believe that since I've read that Shakespeare was one of the culprits of his vilification. Perhaps, Napoleon, based on a predominantly English backed interpretation of his life, etc. Or any number of Roman leaders who's actions were mentioned in writings.
Despite having a minor in History and reading predominantly history I find that i am still susceptible to believing what i read.
Is there an easier way to know that I'm reading misinterpretations or that I'm reading something that is causing 'considerable harm' to the record?
How do I know if more recent historical study is better than theories that have been around for many many eyars?
How do I know what historical harms are made and how do I correct them?
How do amateurs of history know when a misinterpretation has been committed?
How do I not get caught up in adhering to the most recent thesis that i've read?
I hope I have explained myself well enough
You may want to read /u/commiespaceinvader and /u/restricteddata's excellent answers to How do I, as a layman, evaluate historical claims?.
The basic answer is that there's no easy way to do any of this, no decoder ring. You're always going to need to look further. I mean, if it were super obvious, why would we need historians, right?
In this case, you have a fairly simple option - what do Kirkland's footnotes on the widening of Parisian streets and boulevards lead you to? What's he citing to support his theory? Does he have citations at all, or is the footnote you're referring to just a little aside? Then, assuming Kirkland does have some kind of citations, it gets less simple: what are scholarly opinions on the sources cited? Do they say what he claims?
If you don't have the time or ability to track down those sources, you can always get a broader opinion on the work as a whole. There is a detailed review on H-France that may interest you, although it does not discuss this specific point; as Paris Reborn is not an academic text, though, I can't seem to find many rigorous reviews of it.
(You also have the option of posting here and asking specifically about this topic. I can think of a couple of flairs who might be able to answer this particular question.)
How do I know if more recent historical study is better than theories that have been around for many many years?
A good rule of thumb is that recent study tends to be better than older theories, particularly when the latter have no clear genesis and seem to have come from outside of the field of history. That's not always true - sometimes people come up with a radical new idea that upends what we thought we knew that turns out to be baseless and overhyped. But in general, historians working in good faith make rational interpretations of existing and new evidence.
How do I not get caught up in adhering to the most recent thesis that i've read?
Read widely. Build up your own store of knowledge so that you can start to evaluate theories and chains of reasoning on your own. At the same time, recognize that it's an unavoidable cognitive bias and don't be too hard on yourself!