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 …
-
Complex answer! There is no database, but some basic rules of thumb: sources chronologically closer to events are generally more reliable We also look to answer questions about how a source might get their information - eyewitness testimony? legends? other lost written source?
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.
-
In this case, the key difference is chronology. Herodotus is writing within living memory of the events in question and he's in a position to go and check the facts. On the other hand, he has one clear omission here and Herodotus' overall reliability is mixed.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.