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.
-
-
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.
-
Diodorus is writing much later (first century - 400 years later) and so reliant on intermediate sources (like Herodotus). He's also writing a 'universal' history down to his present, so he's hardly likely to have gone and checked every detail.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Training to be a Time Detective, I like it
And thanks!Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.