If it's by an accredited scholar and/or published by a peer-reviewed academic press, that's the safest bet.https://twitter.com/Chuck_Morgan3/status/1116691894271193088 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @KevinMKruse
Really? Peer review has NO bias? And only someone "published" is credible!? Wrong! This is NOT the best advice AT ALL. So I am a systems engineer w/o a degree in history or published but I teach thru Liberty Project our founding. I'm not worthy?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BIASPUNDIT
The question was about how to evaluate books and articles, which yes, are usually published.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @KevinMKruse
So, wouldn't a more proper response be; "look to [direct sourcing] for their materials?" If they are citing US history, look to those that lived an wrote 1st hand? Like Washington's writing abt his Sentinel's trying to pull a coup on him? Versus a 2nd or 3rd hand cite?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BIASPUNDIT @KevinMKruse
Historians use multitudes of sources to build up complicated interpretations. Sometimes primary sources are more credible. Sometimes they aren't. Depends on the source and the context. There are plenty of self-serving first-hand accounts that are not credible, as you'd expect.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
An example would be Camelot mythology perpetrated by firsthand accounts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sure. Or any stories that your relatives tell about themselves! :-)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.