Tok Presentation

Why did we ask this topic? We stand for that grappleing the foregone is an important thing to understand what is happening and to pr upshot the uniform mistakes from the late(prenominal). However, on that point is a slight problem in our acquaintance of old. And thats why we asked this question .. Real-life situation You competency be thinkingwhy did they choose this topic? Isnt it obvious that what we contend re exclusivelyy happened? Are they arduous to show us whatsoever stupid conspiracy theories or what? So here comes the real life situation. It is no made-up situation because, unfortunately, it happened to me recently.I was reading characters for my EE. The second source I read basic bothy overthrew/contradicted my substantial research question. I am writing rough a linguistic rule in medieval Japan who brought peace which lasted 250 years and how he well-bred this peace. As I read the second source, it stated that the one that real established the peace was non this ruler, but the one before him. With this naked as a jaybird study my whole EE practically fell apart. So, I had ii contradictory sources and a load of questions How it could be possible for such a contradicting sources to exist?And how do we know which one is true and which one isnt? Sources Okay, now lets point back to our knowledge of past. Where do we get it from? Well, there argon different sources that together military service us gather our historical knowledge. We can categorize them into two groups primal and secondary. Well, I hope you all know what uncomplicated and secondary sources atomic number 18, but if you begettert let me hypothesise it really briefly. Primary sources atomic number 18 those that were created by people who witnessed the levelts that are under study and secondary are sources, which are build upon (analyze and interpret) chief(a) ones.Now, lets try to pull in a list of the sources so that we can demonstrate how some of them c an belong unreliable. PrimarySecondary Diaries Journal/magazine article Pottery (physical stuff)History textbook for schools LettersBook about biography Inter trancesEncyclopedias SpeechesReviews Documents Photographs Now that we relieve oneself a list of sources, we need to think about what could possibly venture them. Those can be all four of our tools of knowledge perception, emotion, reason and language. Using these, we? ll show you how the sources can reflect the past not real accurately.Lets start with primary quill sources. What can affect them? Lets start with written accounts and diaries. First, the writer must see the event. What can go improper in perception? Well, each soulfulness perceives things selectively, according to what they expect to see, according to their emotions, culture, traditions and so on. Lets sound off a soldier named Joe. After surviving a fighting he writes a letter to his wife. I believe I do not wealthy person to mention that this lett er will later become a primary source for us.It consists of many emotional sentences about the death of John, Joes friend, who died during the passage of arms and there is only little information about the battle itself and its outcomes. This shows us already, that Joe perceived very little from the battle, but instead change state on what was happening to his friend (which is natural, but for historians that are studying the battle instead unfortunate. However, Joe describes something from the battle. He says that their enemys ranks consisted of thousands of soldiers compared to their barely thousand.However, other sources from the same battle state, that the armies were equal in numbers. So, obviously, Joe exaggerated as people head for the hills to under stress situations. But his wife will never know this bit of information Furtherto a greater extent Joe writes that it was the enemy who actually provoked the battle, season source written by someone from the other side state s that is was the take on opposite. So obviously nobody wants to admit to be the aggressor. This was vertical an causa of how perception and reason can influence the given account of an event from the past. Now lets watch a little video.I 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 besides count as primary sources, however I think it is obvious why they cannot be very reliable. Their purpose is to manipulate and misrepresent the truth. For us, and for historians, sometimes it tycoon be very hard to take away whether something is a propaganda and manipulation of facts or whether it is not. It is essential for the historians and us to be able to distinguish what is propaganda or manipulation and what is not.Even though such sources contain manipulated information which is useless for historians who want to know the truth, they are still valuable since they help us understand the historical context of that time. Furthermore data and formal documents can overly contain manipulated information and that is even harder for us to see, because we tip to believe official things. To get back to our knowledge issue, knowledge of the past that we gain from primary sources can be inaccurate, since primary sources tend to be very subjective.But there are plenty of orimary sources, which give us an objective and therefore probably 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 have got at least(prenominal) some information about the past. Secondary sources Now lets move to secondary sources. The most widely used secondary source are historians and textbooks they write. Historians are very important for us, receivers of the knowledge.Why? 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 dont speak and also there can be overwhelming number of them and we so might not be able to distinguish the important ones from the ones that contain no valuable information. Thats where historians come in handy. They gather the information, read done as many sources as possible, interpret the information included and then write books that should be understandable for us. But, there are several problems.The first, perhaps not the obvious one, is that historians do not always get all the information they need to give an account of a particular event. Its like a puzzle. They have many pieces, but sometimes the pieces dont fit together or there are some pieces are missing. Then they have to throw 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 filling in the gaps can be very dangerous, especial ly if the historians are biased. Quite often historians are nationally biased.They have been raised in one democracy along with its traditions and culture and therefore, even if they are trying their best, they are going to write the history from their countrys point of view. Another problem comes in understanding the primary sources. The main obstacle in this case is language, which might have been rather different at that time. As much as historians may try, the deracination can almost never be perfect. Sometimes those are retributory minor mistakes that dont matter, but in some cases, the exposition might be fatal.However, we will never know whether the translation was damage or not. Furthermore, these sources can be further translated, so we basically get a translation of translation and the source can completely miss its original meaning. To conclude and get back to our question, even though (we hope) they are trying to be as objective as they can, historians can make mis takes in 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.Now lets assist at us. We are the receivers of knowledge. Since our own 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 overlook some vital points. Also, have you ever thought about checking whether a certain historian is telling the truth? Or did you just blindly believed everything he said, just because he has the title of historian? This is a typical ad hominem fallacy that we all can make.Lastly, we, similarly as historians, are nationally biased, which also clouds our reasoning. Final Conclusion To conclude our presentation, we should now see that we know our past only to a certain extent. It depends on the reliability and am ount 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.And, what do you think Jarka did with her EE sources? She was quite hopeless at first, but then she decided to read the stay sources. The rest, supported her research question (thankfully), so she could conclude (with almost cytosine % certainty) which one was the one that was not true. ? Also, primary sources serve the purpose 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. oft we do not have written accounts from peasants and lower classes, simply because they didn? know how to write, didn? t consider it necessary, useful CONCLUSION =our knowledge of past is in many cases not t he same as the past itself, because it is based on human interpretation of why and how certain events happen = also, new narrate is constantly 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 alive and changing = try to gather as much different sources as u can- compare them do what historians do.