When the historian has no evidence to back up his theory
Bias can be useful to historians by allowing them to learn about people's opinions and beliefs.
Historians Have To Be Careful Of Bias Because, If They Are Writting A Report About Something That Has Happened That Is Part Of History, They Might Use Bias Because They Want The Story To Be Remembered Or Famous In Some Way. But They Don't Want To Use Too Much Bias Because It May Not Be True !
yes
Historians would be wise to look for bias in a source because bias can influence the way the writer relayed the information. Sources free from bias are to be the most trusted.
Historians should consider point of view and bias because these factors shape how events are recorded and interpreted, influencing the narratives that emerge. Different perspectives can reveal underlying motives, cultural contexts, and power dynamics that may not be immediately apparent. By critically analyzing sources for bias, historians can construct a more nuanced understanding of the past, ensuring a more accurate and comprehensive representation of historical events. This approach helps to challenge dominant narratives and acknowledge marginalized voices in history.
Historians need to be worried about reports with bias in them because they reports do not accurately reflect history. Historians need to take Manny reports into consideration when studying history.
bias or primary
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.
It helps historians to remember to check other sources for facts.
biased
some amount of bias
If historians weren't biased there'd be no heated controversy to fuel book sales, and they'd die out.