Difference between revisions of "15. Explain the first two rule for judging information objectively."
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In order to organize or judge anything, there must be a structure and basis, and judging historical claims objectively is no exception. To "evaluate and limit conflicting claims about the past", there are four rules. The first (1) is that it must explain most of the observations throughout while making few assumptions. A solid claim would state, "The stick is brown, course, and we found it at the base of a magnolia tree,"whereas; a weak claim would state "I think the stick comes from a magnolia branch." Assumptions can lead to faulty information and records, "Since New York is west of Chicago, and Chicago is west of Cleveland, therefore New York is west of Cleveland.This would be a good argument except for the faulty assumption that New York is west of Chicago" Also, there should be limited pre-conditions (for example, there should not be a lengthy clause that states, "in order for this to happen, x must happen and so must y and so must z and so must..." Those variables stand for a number of preconditions. The second rule (2) indicates that if the interpretation, which is one's takeaway of the meaning or significance of something, correlates with proven facts,it is more accurate than one that is not compatible with the proven facts. Due to the second rule, one would not believe a man's claim of viewing flying pigs one day because it has been proven that pigs are unable to fly. These two out of the four rules help eliminate bias and maximize accuracy in the historical claims that comprise our knowledge of history. | In order to organize or judge anything, there must be a structure and basis, and judging historical claims objectively is no exception. To "evaluate and limit conflicting claims about the past", there are four rules. The first (1) is that it must explain most of the observations throughout while making few assumptions. A solid claim would state, "The stick is brown, course, and we found it at the base of a magnolia tree,"whereas; a weak claim would state "I think the stick comes from a magnolia branch." Assumptions can lead to faulty information and records, "Since New York is west of Chicago, and Chicago is west of Cleveland, therefore New York is west of Cleveland.This would be a good argument except for the faulty assumption that New York is west of Chicago" Also, there should be limited pre-conditions (for example, there should not be a lengthy clause that states, "in order for this to happen, x must happen and so must y and so must z and so must..." Those variables stand for a number of preconditions. The second rule (2) indicates that if the interpretation, which is one's takeaway of the meaning or significance of something, correlates with proven facts,it is more accurate than one that is not compatible with the proven facts. Due to the second rule, one would not believe a man's claim of viewing flying pigs one day because it has been proven that pigs are unable to fly. These two out of the four rules help eliminate bias and maximize accuracy in the historical claims that comprise our knowledge of history. | ||
| + | |||
Resources: | Resources: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
Spotting Unstated Claims and Assumptions. (n.d.). http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/60/implicit-assumptions.html | Spotting Unstated Claims and Assumptions. (n.d.). http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/60/implicit-assumptions.html | ||
| + | |||
| + | Image from: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/74/dc/9c/74dc9cb270c1cffe00c990fa6624484b.jpg | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other Image from: https://cdn-www.trails.com/images/usa_map_lrg.jpg | ||
| + | |||
| + | -Louisa S. | ||
Revision as of 21:04, 27 August 2015
Return to History 8 Historiography Manual Assignments
In order to organize or judge anything, there must be a structure and basis, and judging historical claims objectively is no exception. To "evaluate and limit conflicting claims about the past", there are four rules. The first (1) is that it must explain most of the observations throughout while making few assumptions. A solid claim would state, "The stick is brown, course, and we found it at the base of a magnolia tree,"whereas; a weak claim would state "I think the stick comes from a magnolia branch." Assumptions can lead to faulty information and records, "Since New York is west of Chicago, and Chicago is west of Cleveland, therefore New York is west of Cleveland.This would be a good argument except for the faulty assumption that New York is west of Chicago" Also, there should be limited pre-conditions (for example, there should not be a lengthy clause that states, "in order for this to happen, x must happen and so must y and so must z and so must..." Those variables stand for a number of preconditions. The second rule (2) indicates that if the interpretation, which is one's takeaway of the meaning or significance of something, correlates with proven facts,it is more accurate than one that is not compatible with the proven facts. Due to the second rule, one would not believe a man's claim of viewing flying pigs one day because it has been proven that pigs are unable to fly. These two out of the four rules help eliminate bias and maximize accuracy in the historical claims that comprise our knowledge of history.
Resources:
Origins Manual, Page 5.
Spotting Unstated Claims and Assumptions. (n.d.). http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/60/implicit-assumptions.html
Image from: 
Other Image from: 
-Louisa S.
