- This topic has 7 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here's one for you.Imagine you're presented with a primary source (let's say a written document). It's from a period you are unfamiliar with, and it makes a number of factual statements. You aren't entirely sure whether the statements it makes are accurate, reliable or true.Imagine that, for some reason, you can't just check these facts by referring to encyclopaedias etc. You have to make your judgements based on the document itself. What criteria would you use to determine whether any given statement is true or not?
I would say you would have to use a similar standard for admissible evidence in modern legal circles. So, some of it would depend on what the primary document is about. If it contains something in the line ordinary business/government data (lists of names, receipts, statistics, etc.), I think you could trust that it would be reliable. The rationale is that such documents would have been made in the ordinary course of business or one's affairs and people generally do not falsify those.Now, if the primary document were something else, you would have a more difficult time verifying the factual statements. From the context of the document, is it a polemical tract? Is it used in a context of advocating something? If so, the facts would be less reliable. This doesn't mean they're not true, but that you'd need some sort of corroboration to obtain more certainty.If the document were somewhere in between, you'd have to make a judgment call. Does the author (or someone else) have something to gain from a certain portrayal of the facts? Do you think there would be a situation in which such facts would be falsified or exaggerated? I think if you support the case that it is not really reasonable for someone to present false facts, you have gone a long way in supporting their truth.The problem I see is that if you don't know the external context of the document (e.g. the social, political, economic, religious, technological) circumstances surrounding its creation and the content of its message, you might have a hard time addressing the problems in my previous paragraph.I'm curious – what kind of document exactly are we talking about?
I believe the most important thing is context = when was that document written and what was going on, which phid mentioned. Also, I would check other primary sources and see what they have to say.
Here's one for you.Imagine you're presented with a primary source (let's say a written document). It's from a period you are unfamiliar with, and it makes a number of factual statements. You aren't entirely sure whether the statements it makes are accurate, reliable or true.Imagine that, for some reason, you can't just check these facts by referring to encyclopaedias etc. You have to make your judgements based on the document itself. What criteria would you use to determine whether any given statement is true or not?
This situation is impossible. Is there a time limit on research? You keep searching and digging until you can cross reference that source with another source that either mentions it or corroborates it in some other way. If you can't find such a corroborating source, then you have to concede the source you have as an anomaly yet unverified and draw no conclusions from it other than declaring it out there for further review.
I was taught that, as a historian, you examine every source (primary or secondary) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Therefore, I would start with a belief that the source is probably inaccurate, that the author was biased and was trying to assure that his or her perspective was justified or recorded. In the scenario that you offer, I would have to make judgments based on perceiving bias in the source and would start with an initial level of doubt. I would have to ask:Why would the author have written the document?What did the author include and what did he or she choose to exclude?What do we know about the author and their allegiances or position at the time? Did they perhaps have a patron?What biases could have influenced their writing – racial, ethnic, economic, social, national, personal?Needless to say, you are going to have to make a judgment call – that's what we have to do. But I'd start with being doubtful of the author's intentions, and go from there.
If the source offers no real help to your thesis, I would cull it immediately and move on. If it does help, it has to be corroborated by other sources because it can't stand alone unless it is the only verifiable source that can be cited on the subject (which is rare).
I was taught that, as a historian, you examine every source (primary or secondary) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Therefore, I would start with a belief that the source is probably inaccurate, that the author was biased and was trying to assure that his or her perspective was justified or recorded. In the scenario that you offer, I would have to make judgments based on perceiving bias in the source and would start with an initial level of doubt. I would have to ask:Why would the author have written the document?What did the author include and what did he or she choose to exclude?What do we know about the author and their allegiances or position at the time? Did they perhaps have a patron?What biases could have influenced their writing – racial, ethnic, economic, social, national, personal?Needless to say, you are going to have to make a judgment call – that's what we have to do. But I'd start with being doubtful of the author's intentions, and go from there.
Vultures analysis squares with what I have been taught. Of course, we both go to the same school too.
