Intellectual Entropy

Ever since I decided to take my education into my own hands, I've been having to do a fair bit of research. What are the general criteria for evaluating sources as trustworthy or not? And how many sources are required to be considered solid evidence?

Julian

Rather a big question with many answers. And none of the answers will be particularly clearcut. Try starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

and a thread about it here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135193

Julian

neilgodfrey

There are many books discussing a wide range of theories, philosophies and methods of history in many libraries. A few titles covering a wide range of views and that include special references to evaluation of 'historical facts and evidence':

Fifty key thinkers on history / Marnie Hughes-Warrington. (If I recall correctly I think this title has handy excerpts of opposing views of some of the authors listed below. Be warned though: reading just one of the following authors could leave one with a skewed view of how historians evaluate historical evidence -- hence my emphasis that the following list includes a range of authors who sometimes slice each other to pieces in refined academic argument.)

What is history? / E.H. Carr

Theories and narratives : reflections on the philosophy of history / Alex Callinicos.

Objectivity and historical understanding / Andrew Beards.

In defence of history / Richard J. Evans.

Re-thinking history / Keith Jenkins.

The pursuit of history : aims, methods, and new directions in the study of modern history / John Tosh.

From reliable sources : an introduction to historical methods / Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier.

The idea of history : with lectures 1926-1928 / R.G. Collingwood ; edited with an introduction by Jan van der Dussen.

Our knowledge of the past : a philosophy of historiography / Aviezer Tucker.

The new nature of history : knowledge, evidence, language / Arthur Marwick.


I copy below a summary I made some time ago of Marwick's 'catechism' for evaluating primary sources. The points listed against the numbers are for most part his wording, while the notes in square brackets are my notes on his points as they could relate to the study of Christian origins. But I think you might find Peter has done a more comprehensive job of this sort of list in his Wikipedia article.


Arthur Marwick: The New Nature of History , 2001 .........

1. Is the source authentic, is it what it purports to be?

[We have a collection of letters that claim to be written by Paul and another set or writings claiming to be written by Peter. Are they genuinely written Paul and Peter or are they the products of someone wanting to use the authority of Paul’s and Peter’s names for their own teachings? How can we establish their provenance (place of origin)? Most historians would dispute the authenticity of those claiming to be by Peter, but do they apply the same criteria consistently to all of those claiming to be by Paul?]


2. When exactly was the source produced? What is its date? How close is its date to the date of the events to which it relates, or to dates relevant to the topic being investigated? How does this particular source relate chronologically to other relevant sources? How does it relate to other significant dates?

[The Gospel of Mark, letters of Paul and Book of Acts have been variously dated anywhere from the mid fist century to the mid second century. Are they written within ten to thirty years of Jesus’ death or 100 to 120 years of it? Do any of these precede the writings of Ignatius, Barnabas, Thomas or Clement of Rome? Are all or any of these are pre or post Gnostic, pre or post Marcion, pre or post 70 c.e., pre or post 135 c.e.?]


2. What type of source is it? A private letter? Or an official report, a public document of record, or what?

[A personal letter, a theological treatise and a Hellenistic romance will contain different kinds of information and require different types of analysis.]


3. How did the source come into existence in the first place, and for what purpose? What person, or group of persons, created the source? What basic attitudes, prejudices, vested interests would he, she or they be likely to have? Who was it written for or addressed to?

[How much can we really derive from any source until we first answer these questions? Some have argued that our ignorance of this sort of information about our primary and early secondary sources has made it impossible to engage in any genuine historical study of Christian origins.]


4. How far is the author of the source really in a good position to provide firsthand information on the particular topic the historian is interested in? Is the writer dependent, perhaps, on hearsay?

[When a letter of Paul tells us what is in the minds and hearts of opponents or a story tells us about a miracle that it says was witnessed by only a few names, on what do we decide the author is basing his account? On creative imagination? On eyewitness testimony?]


5. How exactly was the document understood by contemporaries? What, precisely, does it say?

[This will require a knowledge of technical terms within the documents, textual characteristics of the sources themselves, literary motifs, concepts unfamiliar to moderns, and so forth.]


6. How does the source relate to knowledge obtained from other sources, both primary and secondary?

[Understanding of our sources can only grow the more widely we familiarize ourselves with other sources from the same time and place (even if not directly related to our particular historical question) and where and how those sources fit with neighbouring times and places, and subsequent scholarly quests. In other words, context, context, context – of words within texts, of texts in relation to other texts, of all texts in relation to the society that produced them.]