0
What else can I help you with?
What are both techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
Why is it important for historians to corroborate the information found in pieces of historical evidence?
Answer this question… Different pieces of evidence may contradict the original information.
What Kinds of evidence will historians of the future study to learn about your culture?
i think, they will study what we did in life
Which is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history?
Corroborated sources of historical evidence. (APEX) !/
Why do historians look for evidence about the distant past in myths and legend?
Historians look for evidence about the distant past in myths and legends because myths and legends tell what people believed and understood. Historians study by looking at journals, data, diaries etc., to learn information.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
Search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.
Which historical term describes the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims?
Historical evidence.
Which method separates modern historians from ancient Greek historians?
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
What are techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
What are both techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
Why do historians look for evidence?
Historians look for evidence to support their understanding and interpretation of the past. Evidence helps validate their arguments, provide context, and support conclusions about historical events and figures. By examining various forms of evidence, historians can construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of history.
What step must a historian take to evaluate historical evidence?
The steps historians take include studying the lives of ppl in different times and places is the work of the historians. The most basic tool for this work is historical evidence. Historians collect the evidence, then use it to interpret events. Historians look first at a primary source, first hand information about ppl or events or a secondary source that is stated after the fact.
What do historians have to do with the evidence they find?
Historians use the evidence they find to analyze and interpret the past, draw conclusions, and form historical narratives. They evaluate the reliability and significance of the evidence to construct well-grounded arguments about historical events and trends. Critical thinking and interpretation are essential skills historians utilize to make sense of the past based on the information available.
What is an historical evidence?
Historical evidence refers to any physical or written proof that validates events or people from the past. This evidence can include artifacts, documents, inscriptions, or other tangible items that provide insight into historical events or cultures. It is crucial for historians and researchers to analyze historical evidence to construct accurate narratives of the past.
How should historians determine which argument is superior?
I have the feeling that your question may be part of a series of questions that were put to you. So there is a risk in giving an answer out of the context of your homework assignment. But generally speaking, the strongest argument in any historical debate will be the one where facts and assumed motives can be supported by contemporary factual and documentary evidence; the more, the better.
What is the name for skill s that historians apply to analyze evidence in order to make meaning of the past?
Historical skills, such as critical thinking, source analysis, and interpretation, are applied by historians to analyze evidence and make sense of the past. By examining primary sources, questioning biases, and evaluating context, historians can construct informed narratives about historical events.
How should historians determine which argument is superior if two arguments about an historical event contradict each other?
Historians should assess the evidence supporting each argument, consider the credibility of the sources, and evaluate the context in which the arguments were made. They may also look for consensus among other historians or seek additional evidence to support one argument over the other. Ultimately, the argument that is best supported by a preponderance of evidence and critical analysis is considered superior.
