![]() ![]() ![]() When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most 'authority'-that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.However, majority does not rule even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |