History involves the interpretation of facts, however, different schools of thought have become polarized over time. Red flag number one would be if any writing clearly conflates contemporary political ideologies with historical events. This goes both ways- but one issue, in particular, that is trendy is holding historical figures/institutions to account for contemporary norms. It is extremely problematic to make judgments about past situations and conflate our own contemporary thinking in regard to cultural norms. ie. Some systemic institutions have historically harmed vulnerable minority populations in the United States, this is a fact (although a contested one by polarized right-wing populations). A misinterpretation of this fact would be to cherry-pick research to prove an ideological claim that, "institutions that upheld societal norms for the period were bad" and here are a few examples of institutions "going against" the grain which were "good" and align with our current values of social justice. This type of cherry-picking defeats the purpose of providing a wide scope of research and taking into consideration what could have occurred and why.

My grad school advisor would always rail against ideological arguments corresponding to historical events. Although I did not necessarily always agree with his line of thinking, I greatly benefited from a more "investigative" and objective approach to historical research and writing.

That being said- I do not believe the vast number of reddit commenters copying and pasting facts from various internet websites and stringing these "facts" together in their replies is an investigative/objective approach. Peer-reviewed articles and sources are a necessity for the research process, the more articles/books you read, the better you can begin to understand and evaluate different ways of thinking about the past (and what you might think is the more successful approach)

Interpreting the past requires an enormous amount of critical thinking, and building on these skills can only strengthen your ability to discern between the absurd and adept ways we conceptualize the past.

There's been some interesting responses already, so mine might be a little surplus to capacity! Anyway, when has that ever stopped anyone on the internet?

For the last four years (and I can scarcely believe that now I'm typing it) I've been in charge of our degree programme's basic first year undergraduate skills and methods module (course, paper - called different things depending on where you are. With us it's a module). This is something that we focus on a lot, as it's at the heart of historical inquiry. I tend to break it down into two core, interlinked areas:

1. How you read
2. How you think critically

On point one, my approach is to ask students to adopt a structured method (bear with me on this one and apologies for the dryness) in their reading. Read the introduction and conclusion of the piece, and write down what you think the argument is, plus any questions you have that you want the body text to answer. Then read the text all the way through, without making notes. This also involves reading the footnotes/endnotes and paying close attention to sourcing. After this, note down if your impression of the argument remains the same, or has it altered? What is the argument? How is it sourced? How is it made? Then read the entire thing again, this time taking detailed notes on argument, structure, and sourcing.

You then end up with a comprehensive set of notes on what the argument is, how it is set up, and what evidence is used. This final point is crucial - WHAT evidence is used and HOW is it used? I use the example of Prof. Richard Evans' expert testimony in the Lipstadt (credible historian) vs Irving (odious holocaust denier) court case. Regarding evidence, Evans commented:

"However, historians always provide precise references to the archival sources on which they base their conclusions, enabling their colleagues to check their accuracy and subject their arguments to critical scrutiny [emphasis mine], and this is what commonly occurs when they use each other's work. By contrast, as we have seen, Irving frequently fails to provide proper source references, is often vague about the documents he claims to have used, and sometimes appears to cover his tracks by making it particularly difficult for his readers to track his sources down.”

Evans then went on to comment:

“Historians bring a whole variety of ideas, theories, even preconceptions to the evidence to help them frame the questions they want to ask of it and guide their selection of what they want to consult. But once they get to work on the documents, they have a duty to read the evidence as fully and fairly as they can. If it contradicts some of the assumptions they have brought to it, they have to jettison those assumptions. [emphasis mine] The pursuit of history, as Thomas Haskell has argued, 'requires of its practitioners that vital minimum of ascetic self-discipline that enables a person to do such things as abandon wishful thinking, assimilate bad news, (and) discard pleasing interpretations that cannot pass elementary tests of evidence and logic.”

This is why it is so important to pay close attention to sources when attempting to establish the credibility or utility of any given secondary work. This all requires a degree of critical thinking, and I'm a huge fan of the late Carl Sagan's bullshit detection kit (from his excellent book The Demon Haunted World) as a tool to help students understand how to critically approach sources. In short:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”.
2. Encourage substantive, good faith debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in any discipline there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. [this part is, of course, not applicable to all forms of history, but it does work in cases like areas of economic history].
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

So, critical reading coupled with critical thinking helps you have a much better idea of whether or not any particular argument or point of analysis is worthwhile. Of course, different scholars have widely differing methods of teaching this crucial aspect of historical study. This is just one, YMMV, etc.

Hope this helps.

Malcolm

I'm just a history enthusiast, but I think the same rules for nearly any kind of critical thinking applies to history. Be willing to follow down sources (ask for them if they aren't there) and verify them as needed (I've found myself reading primary source documents before to answer a question that piqued my interest here). Consult with known good experts (the major encyclopedias are generally OK, think Britannica or the like). The more fantastical the claim the more evidence you should require as well. Given the context of your question, it can be hard to winnow out all bias, but it should still be considered and evaluated, and to combat that, it can be good to compare different sides' relative strengths and weaknesses, but really, one shouldn't draw an absolute conclusion. It is much, much more likely for reality to be messier and full of grey areas and nuances to consider.