Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.
So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Sorry that's nonsense.
Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird
Did I say that?

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.
You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

What about it?
As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"
That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.
It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?