hooglever.blogg.se - Goofball goals free

Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?.Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?.What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?.When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?.How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?.How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military) was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?.Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?.Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony: If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint or narratives such as a statement or a letter.

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):

When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most 'authority'-that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.However, majority does not rule even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history: