Riding the Hobby-horse?

Instead of learning to engage with the complexity of this system, the loudest people of our world today oversimplify the issues. They may do this because of a lack one or several of the kinds of intelligence. But just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it does not exist. An example of what is ignored would be the otherness learned through studying history, which Gadamer explains requires a conscious effort to understand the subject for what it is, not in terms of our bias.
This is such a basic idea, but we can see that bias - like that of presentism - still leads discussion. In this instance, one is left with the question: so why is it we would choose to study history, e.g. history of science, which is not solving current problems? An answer is in the word of history, ἱστορία, meaning researchers, investigators, eyewitnesses, and as Gadamer and Hadot constantly pointed out, the phrase for historian, ἡ περὶ φύσεως ἱστορία (from Plato's Phaedo) refers to the inquiry into the nature of things. Of course, some might argue that while one is interested in this history of the world, one might not be interested in the history of the ideas of this world. Such an interest may seem like dilettantism.
Looking at the ideas of the past is valuable if for no other reason than teaching a method, of hermeneutics. Entering into a context so alien to our own - like remembering the role of astrology for modern scientists - may free us from the biases of our time. It isn't enough to be aware of bias to be free of it: scholars' blanket defense against opponents is to call them biased which to my mind does not seem like liberal thought. Bias has become a cliche. Mastering otherness isn't.
This reminds me of Heraclitus' fragment: "Most men do not think things in the way they encounter them, nor do they recognise what they experience, but believe their own opinions."
Hadot implies that contemporary science does not so much seek the nature of the world to coexist with it as it does to make use of the world. The world as thing. Not experience. And since we cannot agree on experience - what is important - we can just go about making medicine and travelling to Mars. We are told to leave experience to privacy, while, again is this not irony, display our lives on the internet. Dialogue is reduced into camps, which as we know from war is not the time when fine arts thrive.
Maybe history, or that which people say doesn't exist because they never thought about them, is dilettantism, more Ruskin and Morris, riding the hoby-horse. But one may also feel sorry for those who have not augmented their experience of reality through its rich and deep associations: to loop thread with the hand may be backwards 'technologically' speaking (iz. its current meaning), but it is τέχνη, one way by which something may be gained. Another way to engage with the nature of things.