skeptism
biased
because they try to get you to think, feel, or act in a particular way
The judges are biased in their opinion on who won the medal.
i think you mean biased. biased means crazy, like kind of weird or stupid. um actually no, anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry. If you are English and therefore believe that England will win the World Cup no matter what then you would be said to be biased. Like favouring your child over another in a race because you are their parent and therefore biased. Hope this helps.
biased
skeptism
biased
Historians do not rely extensively on court chronicles because they are often biased, selective in their coverage, and written with a specific agenda in mind. These sources tend to portray events and figures in a favorable light, making it difficult to determine their accuracy and reliability. To gain a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of historical events, historians use a variety of sources that provide different perspectives.
There are three categories for historians and their source material: Primary: ancient historians existed at the time of the event Secondary: ancient historians existed after the event and analysed/used primary sources modern: Modern historaians who use either of the above majority of the primary sources do not criticize Augustus and idolize him, in contrast some secondary sources like Tacitus hate Augustus Overall however it is agreed(by many modern historians) that Augustus was emperor because of his freinds Marcus vipsanius Agrippa and Gaius Maecanus. The primary sources(historians) were either sychophantic or terrified of persecution by Augustus, the Secondary sources are also biased because they were hired by patrons with vested interests in Augustus's depiction. In short thereare a range of views all with their own bias.
Historians often deal with incomplete, biased, or conflicting sources, making it challenging to piece together an accurate narrative. Unlike detectives who may have access to physical evidence, historians must interpret and analyze historical documents to construct their understanding of the past. Additionally, historical sources may be limited by the perspectives or agendas of their creators, requiring historians to critically evaluate their reliability.
Many sources that historians use are not as reliable as those used by a detective. They have to compile different sources from the same era to determine their accuracy.
Bias is not a secondary source. In terms of historical and academic research and writing, secondary sources are articles and books written by historians and other academics. Secondary sources can be biased based on when the source was written and the author.Ê
Everywhere! All historians are people, most if not all people are biased, therefore, most history is biased. Therefore, bias is everywhere and needs to be considered.
Skepticism
Primary sources of information are great because they are first hand information from someone who was there. Secondary sources are based on primary sources, and may be biased.
Because they only show one side of the object or item and not the other.
All of the above