Re:Does history have a replication crisis?
by P_I_Staker on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:58AM
(#37337242)
Yeah, this has been a pet peeve of mine in online conversations where people call for sources. It's pointless, and maybe harmful. You can't just go looking to attach a citation to prove your point, without critical thought.
I've seen countless examples of "citations" that literally contradict their point. I can recall and exchange on reddit were someone smuggly claimed "they use science" when trying to make this crazy claim about how intermittent fasting is good for managing blood sugar and you should skip breakfast.
The citation said that people with blood sugar issues should always eat breakfast, and have small meals throughout the day. How did any of this help us get to truth?
Check = check cited sources yourself. And
Verify = re-do a study yourself. Outsite of hard science like physics (and relatively simple experiments), in most cases that's not even possible. Especially history: original artifacts disappear, witnesses die & the places where things happened are changed.
Written records are just that - what was written down. Accurate or not.
This is true for ordinary people as well as scientists. Though I'd expect scientists to make a bit more effort (+ using field-specific knowledge to sort things out).