It seems very strange that the only place to learn the truth about Gandhi is in a review of an old film.
But regardless, you're using Gell-Mann Amnesia as a fully general counter-argument. The fact that most news is inaccurate doesn't mean you can dismiss it all and come up with your own alternative history. To convince anyone that a commonly held belief is false requires a far stronger argument than saying "history is written by the victors" and providing one counter example.
I noticed a similar thing in your latest post on psychology, you dismiss the whole field as garbage (rightfully, for all I know). And then, where convenient, you cite studies that support your argument, without explaining why they're better than the rest of the research in their field.
It seems very strange that the only place to learn the truth about Gandhi is in a review of an old film.
But regardless, you're using Gell-Mann Amnesia as a fully general counter-argument. The fact that most news is inaccurate doesn't mean you can dismiss it all and come up with your own alternative history. To convince anyone that a commonly held belief is false requires a far stronger argument than saying "history is written by the victors" and providing one counter example.
I noticed a similar thing in your latest post on psychology, you dismiss the whole field as garbage (rightfully, for all I know). And then, where convenient, you cite studies that support your argument, without explaining why they're better than the rest of the research in their field.