I can't help to think that there is a huge possibility of misinterpreting the evidences.

There is. It is, in fact, an inherent risk of doing history. Face it, people lie. People lie verbally, people lie on text, and people even lie in stone carvings. (What, you think the Behistun Inscription is 100% true? If so, I've got a bridge in Minecraft I'd love to sell you.)

Bias is introduced in all levels of historical study. The sources themselves are biased. The people who wrote them? Biased. And the historians who study them are biased, and so are the other historians who study and argue against the first set.

See, here's the thing. History deals with humans. History is created by humans, written by humans, written for humans, studied by humans, interpreted by humans, read by humans.

The inherent problem here is that the human is a stupid, selfish, blinkered creature with entirely too many prejudices, preconceptions, and biases, and a very sharply limited point of view. It is perfectly possible for a human to give a completely inaccurate picture of what is going on without even lying. Historians know this. It's part of the job. It's one of the hazards that the trade deals with, much like restaurant back-of-house deals with the hazards of knives and stoves.

Fortunately, there is such a thing as the historical method, the same way as there is a scientific method. Here are some previous threads for you to consider:

• u/mikedash examines the matter of bias here,
• u/Georgy_K_Zhukov does the same here,
• and u/itsallfolklore considers 'objective history'.

Also, see next post.