0
Are conclusions related to historical events limited to subjective evaluation of the existing evidence?
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is it true that Conclusions related to historical events are limited to subjective evaluation of the existing evidence?
true
Can you give me an example sentence with the word historical?
historical evidence suggests this theory. The war was Historical.
Why did the croatan Indians kill the the colonists of the lost colony?
It isn’t sure they did. In fact, new historical evidence points to the possibility that they lived with them. They had a village down river from the colony and recent historical evidence has found English items in the village and evidence they were living with them.
What is a sentence for the word historical?
These historical documents are of extreme importance.This is a historical site.
Why was Marie Antoinette so mean?
There is no historical evidence that she was mean spirited.
Is it true conclusions related to historical events are limited to subjective evaluation of the existing evidence?
true
Is it true that Conclusions related to historical events are limited to subjective evaluation of the existing evidence?
true
Conclusions related to historical events are limited to evaluating the existing evidence. True False?
True
True or false Conclusions related to historical events are limited to evaluating the existing evidence?
True
What evidence is always subject to each individual's data?
An individual's perception and interpretation of evidence is always subjective and can vary based on personal beliefs, biases, and experiences. This subjectivity can influence how the evidence is understood and the conclusions drawn from it.
What strategies do historians use to synthesis evidence and draw conclusions?
Historians use a combination of critical analysis, cross-referencing multiple sources, identifying patterns, and considering various perspectives to synthesize evidence and draw conclusions. They also employ historical context, empathy for historical actors, and theoretical frameworks to interpret the evidence in a meaningful way. Collaboration with other historians and subject matter experts can also help to validate findings and conclusions.
How are scientific evidence and scientific conclusions related?
Scientific conclusions are based on scientific evidence.
How do two kinds of scientific reasoning differ?
objective means that you make decisions and draw conclusions based on evidence, subjective means that personal feelings have entered into a decison or conclusion.
What does you do historians use to synthesize evidence and draw conclusions?
Historians use various sources of evidence such as primary documents, secondary sources, artifacts, and personal accounts to synthesize information. They analyze these sources critically to develop historical interpretations and draw conclusions about the past. By comparing and contrasting different sources, historians construct a coherent narrative to present a comprehensive understanding of historical events.
Why is it important that scientists conclusions are based on evidence?
They rely on there conclusions based on observations.
What should you do if you you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question?
If you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question, weigh the evidence for both conclusions and pick the one you think is most convincing.
What should you do if you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question?
If you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question, weigh the evidence for both conclusions and pick the one you think is most convincing.
