Why are primary sources ore reliable than secondary sources for drawing conclusions about an event?

Answer 1

Yes it is more reliable as it shows exact happenings and without bias, but interpretation of that source can be different in various perceptions.

Another view

No. All sources, whether primary or secondary, need to be evaluated.

Moreover, the term primary source can be problematical. There are many kinds of primary sources, and in all cases their reliability needs to be assessed. The fact that a source is 'old and ancient' does not necessarily make it primary or reliable.

Take, for example, a chronicle kept by monks in a medieval monastery of key events that happened in their own lifetime. Key questions one needs to ask include these:

• Was the author, at least in part, repeating gossip?
• Did the author actually witness any of the events described?
• Did the author have contact with witnesses to the events?
• What written sources, if any, did the author use and how reliable are they?
• Is the chronicle largely a summary of other accounts?
• In what sense, if any, is the chronicle actually a primary source?
• Is the source, perhaps, in reality no more that a summary of other secondary sources? (If so, it might be classed as tertiary - that is, third tier - source).
• Does the author or his monastery have some point of view or particular interest or grievance that it seems to 'push'?
• Are there competing versions of the chronicle and, if so, what accounts for the variations - and how drastic are they?
• Is the chronicle generally naive or does it show indications of skepticism and evaluation?

On the other hand, if you are looking at the monastery's medieval laundry lists, then there is presumably no reason to be skeptical.

In practice one often has to take 'authority' as a guide to reliability, for example, the fact that among specialists in the subject a source is generally regarded as reliable, and/or the fact that it has been recommended by a teacher that you trust on the scholarly or scientific level.

Answer 2

Primary sources are by far better, they are usually both more detailed and more accurate. Secondary sources however, can be used, but it is suggested that they are only applied when in concurrence with the primary and after you have expended all of the primary as well.

Answer 3

first hand experience as opposed to second. as simple as that, would you rather a soldier tell you his story or his son tell it?

Answer 4

A Primary Source is straight form the horses mouth. A Secondary Source is when a Primary Source is quoted by someone else, someone who hears the Primary Source and tells it to a Third Party.

Answer 5

Primary-they/it were actually there