0
How do historians evaluate evidence to determineif it is reliable?
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Does physical evidence have greater value than eyewitness in court?
Evidence and witnesses are only as good as the lawyers questioning them or presenting evidence. Both can be reliable or found unreliable.
Why do you need to collect more data to obtain reliable data?
The more data you have, the more accurate your information. If you have a large amount of evidence of one result, it makes it look correct.
What is the adverb of reliable?
Reliably is the adverbial form of reliable.
What are three features of reliable data?
what are three features of reliable data?
How many syllables are in the word reliable?
The word reliable has four syllables. Re-li-a-ble.
Which method separates modern historians from ancient Greek historians?
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
What do historians intend to do when they make a claim?
Historians intend to support their claims with evidence from historical sources, such as documents, artifacts, and other records. They aim to provide a well-reasoned interpretation of the past based on the available evidence. Their goal is to construct an accurate and reliable account of historical events and developments.
Why is it harder for a historian to use sources than for a detective?
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 Unlike detectives who may have access to physical evidence, historians must interpret and analyze historical documents to construct their understanding of the past.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.
To determine whether a piece of historical evidence is reliable historians generally?
Answer this question… check to see if the information in the source is confirmed by other sources.
Why do historians not find livy a reliable source of information?
They do find reliable sources. Without that their work is invalid and wrong.
How reliable is DNA fingerprinting?
It is not infallable, but it is considered reliable enough to be use as evidence.
Based on no reliable evidence?
ill founded
What do reliable sources include in order to allow readers to evaluate sources for themselves?
Citations
Historians cross-check their research?
Historians cross-check their research by consulting multiple sources to verify information and ensure accuracy. This process involves comparing accounts, analyzing data, and looking for corroborating evidence from different perspectives to construct a more comprehensive understanding of historical events. By verifying information in this way, historians aim to establish a more reliable and nuanced interpretation of the past.
What do gaps in evidence cause historians?
Historians rely on primary sources to reach conclusions. Gaps in history, where there is no written documentation of events may leave historians in a quandary. They must then rely on archaeological evidence, and secondary sources, if available. Historians must ask the following: Is the information reliable? What was the reputation of the writer at the time? Does the archaeological record, primary, or secondary sources disagree with previously published historiography concerning the person or event? How accurate is prior published historiography concerning the subject matter? New evidence can displace old theories regarding history, so historians must be ready to adjust their thesis to reflect this information. Historians must also recognize that myth may shroud the truth about history. "Lost Cause" mythology concerning the American Civil War is a good example of lies perpetuated as history that has been disproved by primary sources.
What problems do gaps in evidence cause historians?
Historians rely on primary sources to reach conclusions. Gaps in history, where there is no written documentation of events may leave historians in a quandary. They must then rely on archaeological evidence, and secondary sources, if available. Historians must ask the following: Is the information reliable? What was the reputation of the writer at the time? Does the archaeological record, primary, or secondary sources disagree with previously published historiography concerning the person or event? How accurate is prior published historiography concerning the subject matter? New evidence can displace old theories regarding history, so historians must be ready to adjust their thesis to reflect this information. Historians must also recognize that myth may shroud the truth about history. "Lost Cause" mythology concerning the American Civil War is a good example of lies perpetuated as history that has been disproved by primary sources.
Why Historians are concerned with accuracy of their writings and readings but are also aware of?
Historians are concerned with accuracy to ensure that the information they provide is reliable and can be trusted by others. They are also aware of the limitations of historical sources, such as bias or incomplete information, and strive to critically evaluate and interpret these sources to present a well-rounded and nuanced understanding of the past.
