Tests of Authenticity and Credibility - University of Cabuyao PDF

TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY  HISTORICAL METHOD It is the process of thoroughly examining and critically analyzing the records and survivals of the past. Likewise, it means the accumulation of data about the past to be thoroughly examined and critically analyzed by a set of...

TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY  HISTORICAL METHOD It is the process of thoroughly examining and critically analyzing the records and survivals of the past. Likewise, it means the accumulation of data about the past to be thoroughly examined and critically analyzed by a set of scientific rules so that a certain past that is attempted to reconstruct can be determined whether it actually happened or not HISTORIOGRAPHY It to refers the process of reconstructing historical data that have already been tested by the method. Also, it means the synthesizing of historical data into a narrative or discourse. The writing of history books, researches such as thesis and dissertations or articles for publications or for lectures in conferences and seminars undergo historiography. HISTORICAL SOURCES Historical sources include documents, artifacts, archaeological sites, features, oral transmission, stone inscription, paintings and oral history Even ancient relics and ruins, broadly speaking, are historical sources. HISTORICAL SOURCES NOT HISTORICAL SOURCES  EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SOURCES Credibility- the quality or power of inspiring belief. Authenticity- the proven fact that something is legitimate or real. Provenance- the sources of information, such as entities and processes involved in producing or delivering an artefact. External Criticism: The Test of Authenticity Authenticity means originality. In history, it is more important to use original sources than secondary sources because they provide raw data that have not been subjected to the interpretation of historians. They also lead directly the researcher or historian to the perception and milieu of the eyewitness in relation to the event being studied. Genuine sources are usually the sources from which secondary materials derived their data  Why the Test of Authenticity is done? It is done in order to determine the genuineness of sources. It is necessary to determine real accounts from hoax stories or those that were fabricated covertly by persons who wanted to have false claims on documents that allegedly prove certain phenomena in the very remote past.  Why the Test of Authenticity is done? Sources are likewise fabricated in order to justify the supposed occurrence of events. A classic case on this matter is Negative Revisionism which, in anyway, attempts to alter history or its course by means of trying to moderate or restrain the impact of history to a person, institution or groups. Another reason in performing the Test of Authenticity is for the historian to detect misleading sources. Sources that mislead purposively can misinform and, therefore, miseducate people because they divert the value or real meaning of events  Why the Test of Authenticity is done? Identifying the authorship of a source, the time of an event, including the time when the source was written, and the space of an event are equally important. The authorship of the source provides strong authenticity and credibility to it while time and space, together with the prevailing practices of that period, become the bases of the context of an event, the building blocks of a historical process.  INTERNAL CRITICISM: THE TEST OF CREDIBILITY After ascertaining the genuineness or originality of sources, the historian has to perform internal criticism in order to determine their credibility. What then makes the credibility of a source important? It is important because it tells whether the source is worthy to use by the historian in his study  How it is done? Historians carefully read the text of the source for content Focus on attention on the author or creator Situation surrounding its existence Intended audience or reader  SOURCE CREDIBILITY 1. Competence of the source in telling the truth 2. Willingness of the source in telling the truth 3. Adequacy of data relayed by the source 4. Reliability of the source when corroborated by other independent sources.  According to Gottschalk (1950), in examining the credibility of a source, the historian or the skilled history researcher plays the role of a ―prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury all in one. But as a judge, he rules out no evidence whatever if it is relevant. To him, any single detail of testimony is credible—even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on necessary evidence, or is from an interested witness—provided it can pass the four tests‖ enumerated above.  An independent source, even when it states certain pieces of information claimed by another source, is a kind of source that derived its information from the occurrence of the event itself. In other words, its author was there both in time and space and that he was mentally mature and conscious to absorb the building blocks of an event as they happened before his eyes. This means that an independent source is an account that did not rely on some extrinsic informants. Certainly, secondary sources cannot be considered independent sources because of their reliance to primary sources. In order to adequately establish the credibility of a source, two other independent sources—written or unwritten—must corroborate its claims. Internal and External Criticism (Newman, 2003)  An example to this is the alleged Maragtas which was purported by Pedro Monteclaro. William Henry Scott (1984) argued in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History that Maragtas was made by Monteclaro based on suspicious oral and fabricated written sources. Hoax Code of Kalantiaw Written in 1413 Bizarre laws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFjr9_azT6s  Sa Aking mga Kabata ni Jose Rizal  Sa isang sulat ni Rizal sa kanyang Kuya Paciano mula sa Leipzig habang isinisalin sa Tagalog ang German play na William Tell ni Schiller, noong October 12, 1886, 25 years old na siya noon, “I lacked many words, for example, for the word Freiheit or liberty. The Tagalog word kaligtasan cannot be used, because this means that formerly he was in some prison, slavery, etc. I found in the translation of Amor Patrio the noun malayá, kalayahan that Marcelo del Pilar uses. In the only Tagalog book I have — Florante — I don't find an equivalent noun.” Dr. Nancy Kimuell Gabriel sa kanyang tesis masterado na “Timawa: Kahulugan, Kasaysayan at Kabuluhan sa Lipunang Pilipino,” sa UP Diliman, 2001 batay sa kanilang pag-uusap ni Dr. Nilo S. Ocampo, at sinegundahan naman ni Dr. Ambeth Ocampo at Virgilio S. Almario sa kanilang mga aklat.  BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WITH SOURCES 1. Sources like relics, artifacts, remains, documents, and witnesses are accurate when proven to be authentic and credible. Relics, artifacts, and remains, though, are more reliable while documents (or narratives) and witnesses are more detailed and specific. 2. The authenticity of a source increases the credibility of that source. 3. A primary source is more reliable than a secondary one. 4. The credibility of a source is increased if it is corroborated by independent sources.  BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WITH SOURCES 5. Sources would tend to be bias, especially to its provenance or to the one who made it or held its custody. 6. If sources like witnesses or their testimonies do not have immediate interest or direct involvement to the event, they become more credible than those who have interest or direct involvement. 7. If all independent sources agree to a certain event, then the event becomes usually acceptable or factual. 8. Testimonies of witnesses are credible if the witnesses are mentally and emotionally fit at the time of the interview or declaration. 9. The source that does not conform to its milieu is considered a fabricated source.  What to Consider with Disagreeing or Hostile Sources? 1. If two sources disagree with each other and there is no way wherein one could be examined over the other and vice-versa, the source with more logical reasoning and which accords common sense would be considered. 2. If sources or witnesses do not agree on certain points, the source that gives more proofs to its authenticity and credibility becomes more reliable.  What to Consider with Disagreeing or Hostile Sources? 3. If the source or witness is hostile, it becomes less credible. Corroboration to other independent and types of sources would be more necessary. 4. A source or witness that holds orientation from one school of thought or philosophy— e.g., Marxism—is usually argumentative or hostile with other sources. Thus, the milieu of the source or the events tackled must be examined by looking at other sources that convey the same theme and that do not hold orientation from any school of thought.  Ethics in Historical Research  Conscious as to where he is coming from (biases, e.g., point of view, presuppositions, personal values, prior knowledge, etc.) Objective and accurate in examining and analyzing his sources. Impartial and rational in interpreting his data and in synthesizing his work. Open to the use of all available and relevant sources, including those that contradict his arguments. Free from the influence and subjection of others; he must subject himself only to the truth.  Ethics in Historical Research  Conscientious in properly citing his sources. Thankful to those who helped him in pursuing his research in one way or another. Adhere himself to the highest integrity of scholarship by avoiding academic or intellectual dishonesty such as plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating or sabotage.  Engage himself in a scientific scholarship through the proper application of the established methods of the discipline.  Ethics in Historical Research  Establish a serious and rational familiarity with sources and a critical dialogue with other historians and the reading public.  Secure all forms of sources and allow them to be used by other historians.  Offer authentic pieces of evidence to any serious claims or arguments. Refrain from duplicating what has been done before.  Acknowledge indebtedness from other historians or those who extended assistance.  Ethics in Historical Research  Exude respect for criticisms from peers and other historians.  Abstain from unreasonable interpretation of his data in order to achieve his intended purpose. Show respect to other viewpoints. Avoid irresponsible use of sources in order to deliberately mislead readers, conceal incidents in the past or modify history for one‘s benefit.  ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: Explain what is historiography. Explain the difference between authenticity and credibility. Give an example. Give one example of ethics in historical research and explain.