This may be somewhat in the spirit of this thread. For reddit readers who wonder why this subreddit is so famously aggressive in its moderation, this New York Times essay on the historian Bernard Bailyn, who studied colonial and revolutionary-era US history, may provide some insight.

In the essay, Bailyn is quoted as observing that we today should never forget that we know how history came out--but that people in the past did not. This has two meanings to historians. It means first that we have to be humble about our own conclusions. They are shaped by hindsight in ways that we only partially can acknowledge or be aware of, and this tends to put a boundary on our curiosity, on what we can think of researching about the past. The second is that we have to work very hard, and follow some real form of craft, to understand the past as people experienced and lived it--and understand where we cannot say more.

A lot of the replies to r/AskHistorians original posts that end up in the howling void are those that speak too quickly from an awareness of the present, from an assumption that the way things are now and that people think is a sufficient guide to past events and past thoughts. Or they are replies that assume that the most readily available sources documenting the past are sufficient. But historians know that even if you have a detailed eyewitness narrative or a convincing chronicle of events by a near-contemporary, that documentation may be no more than an unusual survival--or a work of conscious propaganda.

Bailyn was a great historian who is still very much worth reading if you want to understand the early history of the American republic. But I think he was also a historian's historian--a good guide to why and when we are cautious or follow a craft in making our interpretations.