0
What step must a historian take to evaluate historical evidence?
Wiki User
∙ 6y ago
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.
Lenore Murphy
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
In order to make a valid historical interpretation about an event historians must?
check primary and secondary sources related to the event - apex
How do historians evaluate the accuracy of their sources?
On many levels, it much easier to evaluate sources today, because we have access to so much information, whether from historical databases, archival library collections, or numerous other avenues of research. Thus, we no longer need to just assume that if so-and-so wrote it, it must have been true. What also is helpful is that historians are specially trained (many major in the subject in college or get an advanced degree); they learn research methods and are taught how to assess and evaluate the reliability of the claims and assertions the sources make. Historians also learn that certain sources were admired in their day but might not be considered as reputable today; and they learn how to factor in the era in which the source was writing, and the state of knowledge at that time. (It is never helpful to blame someone from the 1700s for not understanding modern science, for example.) Historians are expected to recognize bias (whether political, religious, bias based on social class, etc); a good historian always has a healthy skepticism when evaluating what others have written or said. This can be very useful when reading certain sources that make exaggerated claims: a trained historian can spot something that is historically impossible, or identify areas where something could not possibly have happened that way. Historians today also can differentiate between propaganda and fact: when a politician claims things were so much better in the "good old days," a trained historian can examine what life was really like in a certain time period, and examine the facts about the crime rate, what the public believed about crime, how laws were enforced, etc. To sum up, historians evaluate their sources by looking at them in the context of what was happening in society when the source was writing, by comparing them to other sources in a given time, by exploring what others have said about these sources, and by fact-checking the claims these sources make.
Voters must evaluate information presented in political campaigns to make and choices among candidates?
Yes it is very compulsory for a voter to evaluate the information of their political Parties whom they are going to vote because it gives the right idea that how much the political party are involved in solving the issues of the voters how they are responding in the approach of a voter.
Why must students of history learn to evaluate historical sources?
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.
What are the processes and procedures that result in a fair trial?
A fair trial must be held in a timely fashion. A fair trial must be held in public with a jury, unless the defendant does not want a public trial and the judge agrees. The jury must be unbiased and represent a cross section of the population. The defendant must be given the time and resources to hire an attorney and formulate a defense. All evidence against the defendant must have been legally obtained.
To better understand the prehistory of humans historian must rely heavily upon?
archaeologcal evidence
In order to make a valid historical interpretation about an event historians must?
check primary and secondary sources related to the event - apex
In order to evaluate moral judgements there must be a?
A valid criticism for moral absolutism is that In order to evaluate moral judgments there must be a ?
What is herodotus contribution to geography?
He was historian and philosopher who intends to employs historical methodology to explain some of the phenomena that occurs in space. He said all history must be treated geographically and all geography must be treated historically. From Divine Newton. University of Ghana
How do you find what evidence the DA has?
Defense counsel must be provided with evidence. If you are a spectator you must attend the trial and see for yourself what evidence is produced at trial.Defense counsel must be provided with evidence. If you are a spectator you must attend the trial and see for yourself what evidence is produced at trial.Defense counsel must be provided with evidence. If you are a spectator you must attend the trial and see for yourself what evidence is produced at trial.Defense counsel must be provided with evidence. If you are a spectator you must attend the trial and see for yourself what evidence is produced at trial.
How do you evaluate 5 squared?
to evaluate 5 squared you must simply do 5x5. Which equals 25.
How do you evaluate a math expression?
The evaluate a algebraic math expression you first must substitute a number for each variable. Then you must perform the operation in the correct order.
To evaluate the observations you make you must use?
a hypothesis
What determines if evidence is strong enough to uphold a arrest?
The strength of evidence necessary to uphold an arrest varies depending on the jurisdiction and legal standards in place. Generally, evidence must meet a probable cause standard, meaning that there must be a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and the person to be arrested is responsible. Factors such as witness statements, physical evidence, and the credibility of the evidence can all contribute to determining if evidence is strong enough to uphold an arrest. Ultimately, it is up to a judge or grand jury to evaluate the evidence and decide if it is strong enough to justify an arrest.
To evaluate a variable expression you must do what to values for the variable?
You must substitute values for the variable.
In order to evaluate moral judgments there must be a?
Objective standard involved
What must a scientist do before writing a hypothesis?
he has to evaluate what he has found out before hand
