4 ms·

The issue is no one goes back to the primary sources enough? Because life is short and death is forever, we don't have the time to master all the primary source

The issue is no one goes back to the primary sources enough? Because life is short and death is forever, we don't have the time to master all the primary sources on all possible topics. So we have to rely on secondary sources for most of our knowledge. That isn't unique to history, that's true of every damn subject. I actually worked my way through most of Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton a few years ago, actually doing the math on how rocket engine design works (I was thinking about building my own as a hobby- had a kid instead and all that free time vaporized). It took me ~9 months of working in my spare time from my day job that had nothing to do with rockets. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to only have an opinion/understanding if they've done all the work themselves. So we have to rely on secondary works, done by people who have an understanding of the primary sources/equations/whatever. That's not "the reality of the state of the study of History" that's the nature of humanity.

bilbo0s 7y ago
The point I was trying to make is not really one about primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. My point was more that in areas such as history and journalism, what a person's world view and belief system is will strongly influence what he or she would consider to be valid sources. The primary source examples are only in my post by way of giving an objective means by which to evaluate the factual validity of secondary sources. My larger point is, in things like history and journalism, people believe, mostly, what they want to believe. Regardless of validity. Regardless of primary sources. This is why HN User Michalu was correct in asserting that in history, people often come up with takes on historical subjects that contradict primary sources. Because, 1 - No one will check the primary sources in any case. 2 - Their audiences are generally believers in the world view the new take espouses. And 3 - To gain prominence historians and journalists often need these novel theses to provide sizzle to their writings.
- mandevil 7y ago
  While in my younger days I would probably have agreed with this, now I think that it's more defeatist and nihilist than is warranted. The Civil War example I cited above shows why: all of the areas of focus really happened. Soldiers did experience the front lines of combat, but slavery really was the beating heart of the war. Society really was fundamentally altered in ways that heavily affected women (and men and children and everyone, even those not at the front), and Reconstruction really did happen, and the Redeemers really did overthrow it. Books about all of those topics won Pulitzer Prizes and were Best Sellers and all the rest. People did actually learn about these real things, and some of them did incorporate those changes into their world view. They were stories people were interested in, because they spoke to the struggles that they encountered, not as something that flattered their already existing prejudices. That's a hell of a lot better than you are arguing here. And then something like Hamilton can come along and make a LOT of people reconsider a lot of things all at once. Hamilton might not be particularly accurate as history, but it definitely was a much needed correction to 1776, rather closer than the previous award-winning American Revolution musical. As for the difficulty of checking primary sources, this is true in any field of knowledge. Just like I can in theory read the Declarations of Succession, I can in theory verify General Relativity, but I'm not actually capable of making observations precise enough to do so, so I have to trust that those who are do a good job. There are plenty of people who would claim that I am being duped, and that I am only accepting that GR exists because it fits my world view. For example, the entire Deutsche Physik movement thought it was trumped up sizzle.

bilbo0s 7y ago

The point I was trying to make is not really one about primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. My point was more that in areas such as history and journalism, what a person's world view and belief system is will strongly influence what he or she would consider to be valid sources. The primary source examples are only in my post by way of giving an objective means by which to evaluate the factual validity of secondary sources. My larger point is, in things like history and journalism, people believe, mostly, what they want to believe. Regardless of validity. Regardless of primary sources. This is why HN User Michalu was correct in asserting that in history, people often come up with takes on historical subjects that contradict primary sources. Because, 1 - No one will check the primary sources in any case. 2 - Their audiences are generally believers in the world view the new take espouses. And 3 - To gain prominence historians and journalists often need these novel theses to provide sizzle to their writings.

mandevil 7y ago
While in my younger days I would probably have agreed with this, now I think that it's more defeatist and nihilist than is warranted. The Civil War example I cited above shows why: all of the areas of focus really happened. Soldiers did experience the front lines of combat, but slavery really was the beating heart of the war. Society really was fundamentally altered in ways that heavily affected women (and men and children and everyone, even those not at the front), and Reconstruction really did happen, and the Redeemers really did overthrow it. Books about all of those topics won Pulitzer Prizes and were Best Sellers and all the rest. People did actually learn about these real things, and some of them did incorporate those changes into their world view. They were stories people were interested in, because they spoke to the struggles that they encountered, not as something that flattered their already existing prejudices. That's a hell of a lot better than you are arguing here. And then something like Hamilton can come along and make a LOT of people reconsider a lot of things all at once. Hamilton might not be particularly accurate as history, but it definitely was a much needed correction to 1776, rather closer than the previous award-winning American Revolution musical. As for the difficulty of checking primary sources, this is true in any field of knowledge. Just like I can in theory read the Declarations of Succession, I can in theory verify General Relativity, but I'm not actually capable of making observations precise enough to do so, so I have to trust that those who are do a good job. There are plenty of people who would claim that I am being duped, and that I am only accepting that GR exists because it fits my world view. For example, the entire Deutsche Physik movement thought it was trumped up sizzle.