Why must students of history learn to evaluate historical sources?

Answer 1

Historical sources for records should always be evaluated because not all historical sources are equal in terms of accuracy or purpose. Sources fall into three basic categories: (1) sources that are indisputable; (2) sources that contain unintentional errors; and (3) sources that are deliberate falsehoods and have an ulterior purpose.

Humans aren't perfect and it was common to make accidental mistakes when writing things down. If a historian uses sources, his unintentional errors can be remedied.

Often, a writer could have had an ulterior motive in writing a record in a certain way. This happened frequently. What it means, is that a person may have had a hidden agenda while recording their version and deliberately left out information or actually made up information that seems to support what they have written. If they don't have sources, their writing should not be considered reliable. If their writing goes against the mainstream thought, their sources should be carefully analyzed to see if they should be given any weight.

Thirdly, there are different kinds of sources. Some sources can be relied upon absolutely, like wills, and court records because they are, by their nature, factual and unbiased; while others, such as a written version of an oral history, aren't such good proof.

To be able to write or talk about a historical event accurately, a student of history should always dig below the surface to verify information by looking at the number of sources, the quality of sources, and the type of source. A student of history cannot be taken seriously by others if he doesn't have good sources to support his position.