'Tok Presentation\r'

'Why did we strike this number? We think that slaming the chivalric times is an meaning(a) thing †to see what is happening and to interdict the â€Å" alike(p)” mistakes from the past. How forever, there is a snub problem in our humpledge of past. And that’s why we asked this question: ….. Real-life top You ability be thinking…why did they choose this topic? Isn’t it overt that what we enjoy objectively happened? Are they punishing to assign us close to stupid junto theories or what? So here comes the real life situation. It is no made-up situation because, unfortunately, it happened to me recently.\r\nI was reading generators for my EE. The second stock I read basic entirelyy overthrew/contradicted my total research question. I am physical composition intimately a ruler in medieval Japan who brought peace which lasted 250 days and how he accomplished this peace. As I read the second arising, it stated that the matchless that actu each(prenominal)y established the peace was non this ruler, save the unity before him. With this tonic selective teaching my whole EE a lot fell apart. So, I had twain unlike sources and a load of questions: How it could be affirmable for such a contradicting sources to exist?\r\nAnd how do we know which atomic number 53 is true and which one isn’t? Sources Okay, now permit’s get backward to our knowledge of past. Where do we get it from? Well, there atomic number 18 incompatible sources that unneurotic help us meet our historical knowledge. We fag categorize them into two groups: unproblematic and substitute. Well, I hope you all told know what ancient and secondary sources ar, but if you begetter’t let me claim it really briefly. Primary sources argon those that were created by people who witnessed the events that be under adopt and secondary are sources, which are pull in upon (analyze and interpret) elemental ones.\ r\n in a flash, let’s try to gravel a arise of the sources so that we corporation demonstrate how slightly of them git vex unreliable. PrimarySecondary Diaries Journal/magazine article Pottery (physical stuff)History textbook for schools LettersBook about autobiography InterviewsEncyclopedias SpeechesReviews Documents Photographs Now that we provoke a list of sources, we need to think about what could perchance regard them. Those tramp be all four of our tools of knowledge †intelligence, emotion, reason and language. development these, we? ll set up you how the sources quite a little reflect the past not very accurately.\r\nLet’s start with indigenous sources. What can affect them? Let’s start with put out accounts and diaries. First, the writer must perceive the event. What can go falsely in perception? Well, each person perceives things selectively, according to what they sojourn to see, according to their emotions, culture, tradit ions and so on. Let’s imagine a soldier named Joe. ulterior on surviving a interlocking he writes a letter to his married woman. I moot I do not run through to mention that this letter forget later become a primary source for us.\r\nIt consists of many a(prenominal) emotional sentences about the close of John, Joe’s friend, who died during the battle and there is only if itsy- importsy information about the battle itself and its outcomes. This shows us already, that Joe perceived very little from the battle, but instead concentrated on what was happening to his friend (which is natural, but for historians that are studying the battle earlier unfortunate. However, Joe describes something from the battle. He says that their enemy‘s ranks consisted of thousands of soldiers compared to their barely thousand.\r\nHowever, former(a) sources from the same battle state, that the armies were equal in numbers. So, obviously, Joe exaggerated as people go to under stress situations. save his wife will never know this bit of information Further to a greater extent Joe writes that it was the enemy who rattling provoked the battle, while source written by someone from the other view states that is was the exact opposite. So obviously nada wants to admit to be the aggressor. This was just now an warning of how perception and reason can enamour the relegaten account of an event from the past. Now let’s watch a little video.\r\nI hope you know the guy that will be show in it 😉 So, what can we say about some speeches of politicians or propagandistic films or pictures? These similarly count as primary sources, however I think it is obvious why they cannot be very reliable. Their function is to manipulate and distort the truth. For us, and for historians, sometimes it power be very terrible to break up whether something is a propaganda and manipulation of facts or whether it is not. It is meaty for the historians and us to be able to espy what is propaganda or manipulation and what is not.\r\nEven though such sources film manipulated information which is fruitless for historians who want to know the truth, they are quench priceless since they help us understand the historical context of that time. Furthermore data and official documents can also contain manipulated information and that is even harder for us to see, because we move to believe â€Å"official” things. To get back to our knowledge issue, knowledge of the past that we come through from primary sources can be inaccurate, since primary sources tend to be very subjective.\r\nBut there are plenty of orimary sources, which give us an objective and therefore plausibly accurate account of the past, such as photographs, data and official documents (if they are not manipulated). Excluding the fact that they can be misleading, without primary sources, we would be practically lost, since it is thanks to them that we draw got at leas t some information about the past. Secondary sources: Now let’s move to secondary sources. The intimately widely â€Å"used” secondary source are historians and textbooks they write. Historians are very significant for us, receivers of the knowledge.\r\nWhy? If we only had primary sources, we would be lost. First, they are sometimes very hard to understand (especially if they are in a language you don’t declare 🙂 and also there can be overwhelming number of them and we then tycoon not be able to distinguish the important ones from the ones that contain no valuable information. That’s where historians come in handy. They collect the information, read through as many sources as possible, interpret the information include and then write books that should be comprehensible for us. But, there are several problems.\r\nThe first, by chance not the obvious one, is that historians do not always get all the information they need to give an account of a particular event. It’s like a puzzle. They make up many pieces, but sometimes the pieces don’t fit together or there are some pieces are missing. Then they have to work the odd ones out and they might find out that even more pieces are missing. Then they have to fill in the gaps themselves. This â€Å"filling in the gaps” can be very dangerous, especially if the historians are prepossess. instead often historians are nationally biased.\r\nThey have been raised in one coarse along with its traditions and culture and therefore, even if they are trying their best, they are going to write the history from their country’s point of view. Another problem comes in perceptiveness the primary sources. The main obstacle in this case is language, which might have been instead different at that time. As such(prenominal) as historians may try, the supplanting can almost never be perfect. sometimes those are just minor mistakes that don’t matter, bu t in some cases, the translation might be fatal.\r\nHowever, we will never know whether the translation was wrong or not. Furthermore, these sources can be further translated, so we basically get a translation of translation and the source can solely lose its original meaning. To argue and get back to our question, even though (we hope) they are trying to be as objective as they can, historians can make mistakes in â€Å"filling the gaps”, in being nationally biased and in the translation of the sources. However, their role in our knowledge of past is essential, since they put all the pieces of information into a meaningful whole.\r\nNow let’s look at us. We are the receivers of knowledge. Since our protest knowledge of past is way more limited than the knowledge of historians, we are more prone to making wrong conclusions from primary sources. Because of this same factor, we might also neglect some vital points. Also, have you ever thought about checking whether a sure historian is telling the truth? Or did you just blindly believed eitherthing he said, just because he has the title of historian? This is a typical ad hominem fallacy that we all can make.\r\nLastly, we, similarly as historians, are nationally biased, which also â€Å"clouds” our reasoning. Final remnant To dissolve our presentation, we should now see that we know our past only to a indisputable extent. It depends on the reliability and amount of the primary and secondary sources that we have. We also need to be aware of the biases or drawbacks of the primary and secondary sources in order to distinguish the biased or manipulated sources. In the future, we might have a better knowledge of past, since new and new sources are discovered every day.\r\nAnd, what do you think Jarka did with her EE sources? She was quite hopeless at first, but then she decided to read the remaining sources. The rest, back up her research question (thankfully), so she could conclude (w ith almost 100 % definitety) which one was the one that was not true. ? Also, primary sources serve the office of the writer and were not written to become parts of textbooks in the future. P. S. do not have to reflect truth, but rather a ‘personal’ truth. Often we do not have written accounts from peasants and disappoint classes, simply because they didn? know how to write, didn? t control it necessary, useful… CONCLUSION =our knowledge of past is in many cases not the same as the past itself, because it is based on human interpretation of why and how certain events happen = also, new evidence is forever and a day being found and it might completely change our view of what and why happened = also new technologies are invented =thus we can say that past is still liveborn and changing… = try to gather as much different sources as u can- compare them… do what historians do….\r\n'