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
-
I agree, if the 1st source is a liar, like Trump, then you have to use additional sources to buttress your writing. But again, I would still use Trump as my 1st & primary source then use 2nd sources to prove my point of his lies. Or, just use Trump's dbl talk. Still at 1st src.
Historians literally train for years to learn how to balance the voices of many sources, to triangulate claims, to figure out what one ought to believe. It's not as easy as someone being a liar. There are a million ways individual people can be wrong, mistaken, misremember, etc.
-
-
I was using a simplification for limited space. You lost me at the term "triangulate". Far too political word for me and raises a red flag to your opinion. The res I agree. Some history take more investigation. But most credible is seeking 1st src.
-
"Triangulate" is a mathematical term, not a political one. "Most credible is seeking 1st src" is wrong. Sorry. Most credible is looking at the big picture, which includes, but is not limited to, primary sources. More credible is talking to many experts who do this for a living.
-
I know but it sends red flags up for me cause I don't see the application for writing. To me that's lingo a leftist uses (not accusing) just being honest.
-
OK, for a "bias pundit" you seem to have some ridiculous biases yourself. If you can't actually talk to an expert without objecting to totally standard technical language, then what are the odds you're going to be able to actually ferret out bias? Seriously.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.