0
Because information is always subjective, always - however unintentionally - biassed. If you and I have an argument today and write down the details of it tomorrow, the two accounts will be different, each giving more importance to his own opinions. A historian therefore - or a judge - likes to listen to both sides and, if possible, the accounts of other witnesses, before being able to write a balanced version of the story which migh be somewhere near the actual truth.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Devin
Jordan
Coach
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
To determine whether a piece of historical evidence is reliable historians generally?
Answer this question… check to see if the information in the source is confirmed by other sources.
Why do historians source?
They use sources because it explains what happened and why. It also replaces paragraphs
Which stamens describes why historians might want to use a source to study an event?
It describes the event as it was experienced at the time. (APEX)
What types of obstacles do historians have to overcome?
Historians have to overcome problems such as false reports of events and destroyed evidence. They can overcome these by source checking all evidence with other verified accounts. Some of the calculations can be incorrect and falsehood can be spread. So they have to act like a detective to make sure their information is correct. Ways to get information is through research of similar events. Also they may investigate the site where the event occurred such as in wars or natural disasters. So they have to discuss with other historian, because they all can have different points of view.
Which of the following historians has organized her study of the pass based on the category period?
Which method will best help you determine whether or not a secondary source is conclusion is valid?
