This touches on something I‘ve long wondered: how does credence estimation in history work? Like is there a database somewhere where I can say "ok, give me all the pieces of info from X that we think are reliable and why"? Or is there a "sense" you develop after years of reading?https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1349222878487728129 …
-
-
We also look at the accuracy of facts we can confirm (with other sources, archaeology, etc) to see if our source is generally reliable and how much effort they put into getting it 'right.'
-
Learning to evaluate sources critically, to think (and be informed) about their agendas and styles, the patterns of distortions they may have is part of the training that a historian does to work in the field.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Generally concur. On a more macro level the production of history is bound to the evidence, yes. But a shorthand model can illuminate the realities of historical thinking.
-
“History” (an interpretation of past events) = the systematic evaluation of a subset of available evidence + interpretive medium + (present context/purpose).
@BretDevereaux outlines well the first factor. The others must be acknowledged. - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Isn't this particularly problematic when trying to figure out timelines for pre hostory then. For example, I only recently learnt about the possibility that Goebekli Tepe is a good bit older than estimated (end of the Younger Dryad).
-
The sources closer to us in chronology being considered more legitimate means that later ideas are given credence over older, harder to verify ones. But given that later ones may have had their own incentives+mistakes, does it mean that our confidence<< in events from longer ago?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.