Primary v Secondary Sources

[Pete1052]

The increased emphasis on the use of primary sources in historical writing that began in academic circles in the 19th century was mainly to give history a greater level of empiricism than would otherwise be the case. Secondary sources aren't inherently wrong, but secondary sources that are based on secondary sources that were themselves derived from secondary sources become farther and farther removed from the original evidence. When it happens over a period of centuries these stories can become more on the order of being heroic tales like Beowulf and the Illiad and Odyssey rather than accounts of what actually happened. That having been said, the use of primary sources does not make history a science.

[peterhogg]

Don't disagree but I should add, to be fair to the book and the reviewer that the point they were making is that as compared to Classic histories such those of Herodotus, more recent historians began to strive towards a more empirical type of study of history, again relative to what had been recorded as history before them.

[PGL]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 3 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It`s not derived from direct observation or experiment, it`s not verifiable by observation or experiment and it is not guided by practical experience. Of course, it`s still an entertaining and interesting pursuit! <IMG style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle" alt=smile.gif src="style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" border=0 emoid="">

Have to disagree with this slightly. Remember that primary sources are observations - even if they include "parallex error" (an apparent change in the position of the observed by a change in the position of the observer).

Autobiographies are a class of direct observation. Don't they also include practical experience?

[PhilB]

In terms of empirical science, observation means collating data in a repeatable manner so that the results can be verified and, if necessary, reproduced by another observer. The results are reproducible. Historical observation is somewhat different. "Guided by practical experience" means referring to previous reproducible conclusions, not by one person`s experiences as they happen to remember them. I don`t want to make too much of this gents - just to point out that history isn`t an empirical science and may be all the more interesting for that!

[Robert Dunlop]

There are many 'scientific' observations that are not repeatable, which does not negate the empirical nature of any findings. For example, the one-off event of crashing a probe into a specific comet passing by on a certain date/time. Futhermore, the empirical findings from such an event will be limited to those observations that could be tested for. Assuming the instruments worked according to the specifications and the previous tests, only a limited number of instruments will be available (sticking to this example - payload limits will restrict the number of instruments, some instruments will not have been invented yet, some observations will not have been thought of, etc, etc). Observation results may be accurate (or may not, for reasons that are not always apparent) but provide an incomplete picture. This is where interpretation takes over. Much of what is described as scientific research is actually interpretation. There are many similarities with historical research, perhaps more similarities than differences.

Robert

[PhilB]

Much of what is described as scientific research is actually interpretation. There are many similarities with historical research, perhaps more similarities than differences.

Robert

There is indeed often a degree of interpretation in scientific observation - current forecasts on global warming for instance. And there are similarities with historical research but I would contest the last proposal. Not on this thread however! The problem with a historic event is that it is not re-observable such as almost all scientifically studied events are. The crashing probe is somewhat exceptional. We can, however, reperform the observations and experiments of scientists through the ages. We cannot re-observe a historic event other than a naturally re-occurring one.

[PGL]

I'm not disputing what you said Phil_B.

I agree that history is not a science, and so cannot be 'empirical' in the scientific sense. Primary sources are observations though and do include personal experience.

As for interpretation in the history of science, it's full of pre-conceived notions based on other people's interpretations. One of my favourite anecdotes is the Rutherford "cannonball at tissue paper" one. Rutherford needed to step outside the 'accepted' wisdom of the time in order to discern what was happening. No amount of repeated experiments would achieve that for him. It was the initial observation that accounted for his re-evaluation of atomic structure and re-observation of the same result didn't enter into it.

A long winded way of saying that a single observation sometimes is all that is needed.

It's always best therefore to start off in presenting a null hypothesis, collect the date, do the stats, examine the chi squared values and come to as unbiased a conclusion as possible. I can see some parallels with this approach in history but I accept (and wholeheartedly agree with) the principle that we cannot (and should not) refight a war that was finished a long time ago. (Oh, I sounded a bit like Gerald Ford there!)

[Althouse]

Congnetive science reckon the brain only absorbs 15 percent of what we see, and we observe what fits/what we are trained to see. I did a fascinating course the year before last on this, where we had to watch a film of people bouncing balls, and count the number of times. Now during the film something else happens, but you miss it because you are concentrating on the b**** balls, autistic people see it, but not you and I. When the course was shown to Australian University professors, they ran the tape nearly all day, because they where so shocked, even when you know what will happen, and are counting the balls you have to really concentrate to observe correctly. Since then I have downgraded my belief that single eye witness reports get a true and complete picture, and worry about scientific research using only humans to observe the results.

That thing was a man walking straight through the people bouncing balls wearing a monkey suit.