Understanding history a primer of historical method pdf

#Understanding history a primer of historical method pdf how to#

Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony: If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint or narratives such as a statement or a letter.

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-JГёrgensen (1998) and ThurГ©n (1997): Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.Д¬ore principles for determining reliability

When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most 'authority'-that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

However, majority does not rule even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proven.

Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, 'for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author.' An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.Д«ernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:

#Understanding history a primer of historical method pdf how to#

Shafer on external criticism: 'It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using false evidence whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence.' Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. The first four are known as higher criticism the fifth, lower criticism and, together, external criticism. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?.In what original form was it produced (integrity)?.From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?.Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divide source criticism into six inquiries: Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.