I don't think we can know things like history for sure. Winners decide on history anyway. The only knowledge we can know for sure is scientific knowledge.

I would agree that scientific knowledge that can be tested is a good thing, but before we reject other forms of knowledge, we need to realize that rejecting other forms of knowledge has some serious consequences. In fact, we would have to reject most of what we think we know, including scientific knowledge! How so? because science relies very much on the records of past experiments. No one does all the experiments from scratch all over again. Scientists have to trustthe reasonable reliability of the records of the past experiments to advance our knowledge in science. If you think about it that way, it turns out that science actually relies on historical knowledge being more or less accurate. Well, that's going into the field of philosophy of science, which is outside the scope here.

I just think it's dangerous to reject all historical knowledge, since so much of our knowledge depends on it. If you are interested, check out How can you know a God that you can't detect through the 5 senses?, which covers this whole issue of knowledge (epistemology).