How do historians evaluate the accuracy of their sources?

Answer 1

On many levels, it much easier to evaluate sources today, because we have access to so much information, whether from historical databases, archival library collections, or numerous other avenues of research. Thus, we no longer need to just assume that if so-and-so wrote it, it must have been true. What also is helpful is that historians are specially trained (many major in the subject in college or get an advanced degree); they learn research methods and are taught how to assess and evaluate the reliability of the claims and assertions the sources make.

Historians also learn that certain sources were admired in their day but might not be considered as reputable today; and they learn how to factor in the era in which the source was writing, and the state of knowledge at that time. (It is never helpful to blame someone from the 1700s for not understanding modern science, for example.) Historians are expected to recognize bias (whether political, religious, bias based on social class, etc); a good historian always has a healthy skepticism when evaluating what others have written or said. This can be very useful when reading certain sources that make exaggerated claims: a trained historian can spot something that is historically impossible, or identify areas where something could not possibly have happened that way.

Historians today also can differentiate between Propaganda and fact: when a politician claims things were so much better in the "good old days," a trained historian can examine what life was really like in a certain time period, and examine the facts about the crime rate, what the public believed about crime, how laws were enforced, etc. To sum up, historians evaluate their sources by looking at them in the context of what was happening in society when the source was writing, by comparing them to other sources in a given time, by exploring what others have said about these sources, and by fact-checking the claims these sources make.

Answer 2

I believe every student is an amateur historian. Any time you access a source, you must evaluate its accuracy and validity to today.

For example, let's say you were writing about whether the earth is flat or round. You could conceivably find an historical text that declared the Earth was flat. Even if the historical scientist was a well-known figure, you also know this idea was debunked. Moral: Just because someone is or was viewed as an "expert" doesn't mean the information is accurate today. Try to find the more recent "evidence".

Along the same line, let's say you are researching health benefits of salt. You find a website that looks professional, but it says that people can guarantee their luck over their health by throwing a pinch of salt over the shoulder. This was a superstition and myth, which you should be able to disprove with just a bit of research. Moral: "Facts" are not necessarily facts just based on how nicely the book or magazine looks. Always view every source with caution and some disbelief, until you find more evidence saying the same thing.

In another example, you've learned that ANYone can write ANYthing. The internet is full of opinions masquerading as supposed facts. You not only have to evaluate the content, but also who wrote it. Go to trusted websites for information. Use professional journal articles instead of websites.

Some historical documents can contain errors. For example, in genealogy, a Court Clerk recording a marriage in 1943 wrote that a woman was born in 1832. You look at it twice, and KNOW it is just wrong. In that case, you cite the source, but note that the text contains this error.

So like professional historians, student-historians evaluate:

1. the date written
2. the writer/s
3. the facts stated
4. whether the facts can be confirmed by other writers
5. whether the facts stated make sense and fit with other commonly accepted facts.

Answer 3

The most useful way to separate legend from fact is to examine the source, and to see if you can find other credible sources to back it up

Answer 4

cross-checking it