CRITICISM

If you don’t know history, then you don’t know

anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is
part of tree
- Michael Crichton
 2 KINDS OF CRITICISM
1. EXTERNAL CRITICISM
- Refers to the genuineness of the documents a researchers
uses in historical. (Frankel & Wallen, n.d.)
2. INTERNAL CRITICISM
- Refers to the accuracy of the contents of a document. Whereas
external criticism has to do with authenticity of a document,
internal criticism has to do with what the document says. (Frankel &
Wallenn, n.d)
 EXTERNAL CRITICISM
Key (1997) enumerates a series of questions to establish the
genuineness of a document or relic:
(NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY SOLMERANO,
PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 33)

Gilbert J. Garraghan (1946) provides a questions:

(NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY SOLMERANO,
PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 34)
 INTERNAL CRITICISM
Key (1997) provides a questions to check the content of a
source of Information
NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY SOLMERANO,
PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 34)

Gilbert J. Garraghan (1946) ask the question for internal

criticism
NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY SOLMERANO,
PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 34)
 INTERNAL CRITICISM
According to Louis Gottschalk, (1950) “for each particular of
document the process of establishing credibility should be
seperately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of
the author.”
 General Principles for
Determining Reliabilty
Olden-Jorgensen (1998) and Thuren (1997), two Scandinavian historians, have formulated
general principles in determining reliability:
1. Human sources may be relics.
2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted.
3. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe.
4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at the second hand
5. If number of independent sources contain same messages, the credibility of the
message of strongly increased.
6. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies
should be minimizes or supplemented with opposite motivations.
7. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating
bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
 Contradictory Sources
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historian can consider the evident
proved.
2. Majority does not rule.
3. The source shoes account can be confirmed by reference to outside
authorities.
4. When 2 sources disagree on particular point, the historian will prefer the
dource with most “authority”
5. Eyewitness is preferred in circumstances.
6. If 2 independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is
measurably enhanced.
7. When 2 sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, the
historian take the source which seems to accord best with common sense..
 EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE
R. J. Salazar (1974) suggest a series of
questions in order to evaluate eyewitness
testimony:
NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY
SOLMERANO, PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 36)
 INDIRECT WITNESSES
Gilbert J. Garragman (1946) says the most information comes
from “indirect witnesses,” people who were not present on the
scene but heard of the events from someone else.
Louis Gottschalk (1950) says that a historian may sometimes
use hearsay evidence when no primary text are available. He
wites, “In cases where he usessecondary witnesses… he asks;
NOTE: PLEASE OPEN YOUR READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY BOOK BY SOLMERANO,
PALENCIA, AND GALICIA ON PAGE 36-37)
 ORAL TRADITION
Gilbert Garraghan (1946) maintains that oral tradition may be
accepted if it is satisfies either in two conditions:
1. Broad Conditions Stated……..
2. Particular Conditions Formulated……
 SYNTHESIS: HISTORICAL
REASONING
Other individual pieces of information have been
assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed
and established by historical reasoning.
 ARGUMENT TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION
C. Behan McCullagh (1984) lays down 7 conditions for successful argument to the best
explanation:
1. The statement together with other statements already held to be true, must apply
yet other statements describing present, and observing data.
2. The hypothesis must be greater explanatory scope than any other.
3. The hypothesis must be greater explanatory power than any other.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other.
5. The hypothesis must be less and hoc than any other.
6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other.
7. It must exceed other incompatible hyphotheses about same subject.
 ARGUMENT TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION
McCullagh sums up, “if thw scope and strength of an
explanation are very great, so that it explains a large
number and variety of facts, many more than any
competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.”
(McCullagh, 1984; Wikipedia, 2018)
Generalization in Historical
Research
In all research, researchers who conduct
historical studies should exercise caution in
generalizing from small or non-representative
samples. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d)