Metacognitive Reading Report no.

WHAT ARE “HISTORY”AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES”

by Louis Gottschalk
1. The three things that I significantly learned from the reading are:
a. I learned that historical method caters the information which historians use a
reference and evidence to write histories in the form of the past accounts. The
question of nature came from the philosophy of history as a question of
epistemology. This provenance is known as historiography.
b. I also learned that indirect witnesses are mostly the source of history. The
stories told by these witnesses are used by historians as a proof that a certain
thing really happened from the past but not necessarily rely on those. The
historian still checks the authenticity of the testimonies in order to be part of
the history itself.
c. Internal Criticism: historical reliability implies that few information is
accepted as authentic, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each
particular of a document, the process of establishing credibility should be
separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An
author's strong perspective in the documents may consider the liability of a
statement but it also needs a deeper revision into it.
2. The three things that are still unclear to me ...
a. I find difficulty in understanding the argument from analogy because of its
statistical syllogism.
b. And also one of the concepts that I find difficult to understand is the statistical
reference because of its syllogism in probabilistic form.
c. The other topic that I find difficult to understand is the argument to best
explanation because the conditions of the hypothesis is slightly confusing for
me.
3. I used to think that ...
a. I used to think that histories are easily made by those people seeking for true
experiences through different involvements of the people in the past. I never
thought that history involves deeper understanding and thinking taken from
the happenings in the past. It is not easily made; it needs to be proven true
because history will serve as a story of the past that future people will
eventually know. I also thought that histories are only based from the true
experiences of people, I never thought that stories heard from ancient people
can also be considered as part of history.
b. I thought that histories are only based from the true experiences of people; I
never thought that stories heard from ancient people can also be considered as
part of history.

4. The three questions that I want to ask about the reading.

a. How does a historian prove the credibility/ authenticity of the history? In what
way they can prove that it’s true?
b. What is the most efficient historical method in order to test the authenticity of
a certain story in order to become a history?
c. Is there any assurance that the story that has been passed from one generation
to another through oral tradition is still authentic and reliable?