2 ms·
I interpret calibas to mean that oral history is not generally considered to really be history ("official" history), while written books sometimes are. I belie
by kragen 1y ago
I interpret calibas to mean that oral history is not generally considered to really be history ("official" history), while written books sometimes are. I believe that this is correct, and that there are excellent reasons for it, related to verifiability of provenance and mutability. I do not think that calibas was referring to some kind of official imprimatur.
- WalterBright 1y ago> oral history is not generally considered to really be history Probably because it is not considered to be reliable. For example, "hearsay" is inadmissible as evidence in court.
- kragen 1y agoI believe that hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in court even when it's written.
- monetus 1y agoContemporaneous notes are used in courts a lot though, aren't they?
- bumby 1y agoYes, so is oral testimony. That doesn’t make them hearsay.
- bumby 1y agoNot sure why this was downvoted. Written notes can be hearsay. Contrary to the GPs opinion, the medium of transmission is not what distinguishes a statement as hearsay.
- eadler 1y agoYeah. Hearsay is an out of court statement provided to show the proof a matter. It has little to do with oral vs non oral. There are also exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions and so on.