Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:46 pm
....
Most of this memory research is from psychologists and a lot of it is only a few decades old. Historians have been evaluating sources for a long time using their own methods. For instance, historical practice as a rule prefers sources that were recorded as earlier over later sources because it lessens the likelihood of contamination and false memory. They developed this rule of thumb without doing any "studies."
Historians are not as strict about witness errors, as courts or even journalists are. They are more inclined to accept hearsay evidence, as it can provide context, additional details, explain the chronology of events and discovery. Courts do not like hearsay, due to miscarriages of justice and journalists have to be careful as they can face legal action over inaccuracies.
The main way historians evaluate witness evidence, is corroboration. That is the most credible and reliable method for determining truthfulness and accuracy. A witness who gets a date wrong, is not going to cause historians to discount that witness.
It is true that people are often bad with numbers and dates and may be inaccurate in some ways. (This is why it's better to have hard evidence.)
Or corroboration from a source that is not another witness. In terms of dates, documents are the most reliable source.
But there is a limit to how far you can take that to cover for a bad witness.
Revisionist set the bar lower than anyone else, else they are left with no witnesses at all, who worked inside the camps where gas chambers are reported.
Suppose I get a call from someone claiming to be someone I know but I get a little suspicious. Suppose I ask them "how many children do you have?" as I test. I know the answer is four. If they say two, I know the person is lying/is an imposter. You can't say "oh, people are bad with numbers, maybe it's really him and he made a math error." There are errors with numbers that are reasonable and ones that are unreasonable. You can't have an absolute rule that errors do no matter no matter how huge based on superficial googling of "studies."
Historians do discount witnesses, whose evidence lacks credibility and is related more as a story, than what was witnessed. That is why the likes of Elie Wiesel are rarely quoted by historians. Journalists and historians have uncovered false witnesses, who have lied about their experiences in the camps. Errors do matter, which is why only certain witnesses are used, which then results in historians being accused of "cherry-picking". But, if they did not cherry-pick, then their absolute rule would to believe all witnesses and their claims.
Instead, it is you who has the absolute rule, every single witness who describes a gassing, mass graves or cremations of hundreds of thousands of people in certain camps, is lying. Hence, you have zero witnesses to events in the camps with gas chambers! You do not like it when I point out your 100% rate, denying it is the case. But you cannot name a single witness from an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who said they saw gassings or the gas chambers, who you accept as telling the truth about that.
If someone is describing a getaway car, let's say it was grey Honda four-door sedan.
If someone says they thought it was a brown Toyota sedan, that might be a reasonable error if the witness got only a quick look.
Poultry truck - not a reasonable error
Pink Barbie Corvette - not a reasonable error
Unicycle - not a reasonable error
I don't need a study to tell me this. If there is some research about borderline or counterintuitive cases, I would be open to considering it but I think for most of the stuff we deal with the traditional tools are more or less sufficient.
Rather than your analogies, how about a more accurate example. An error is reasonable when it is explainable.
If someone who worked in an AR camp, but who processed property and was not at the gas chambers, and they say they were told that chlorine gas was used, that is an explainable error. It is hearsay.
If a Polish intelligence officer writes a report, based on rumours, that the death camps used chambers with electrified floors to kill, that is an explainable error. It is rumour, and potentially atrocity propaganda.
When both a Nazi and a Jew who worked at the camp and at the chambers, both state the chambers used the exhaust from an engine, the actual cause of death is established and the claims made about chlorine and electricity are now accepted as errors.
There are different claims that people were killed inside chambers, with three different methods of killing, one of which is established as the correct one, because those witnesses are eyewitnesses and corroborate each other.
