Template:Source criticism

This entry is about source evaluation (or information evaluation) in an interdisciplinary context and thus not limited to some discipline-specific understanding of the term "source criticism". A source (an information source) may be a document, a person, observations or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid or reliable. "Source criticism" in a broad meaning of that term is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks.

The meaning of "Source Criticism"

Problems in translation: The Danish word “kildekritik” like the Norwegian word “kildekritikk” and the Swedish word “källkritik” derived from the German “Quellenkritik” and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), who is associated with the positivist tradition. Wikipedia have Danish, German, Norwegian and Swedish entries about this concept written from the perspective of history (There is now also a separate Danish entry about source criticism in an interdisciplinary perspective). However, generally seems the English term “source criticism” to be used differently compared to the Kontinental/Scandinavian “Quellenkritik”. It has been suggested that this is not an accident but due to different views of the historical method. In the German/Scandinavian tradition this subject is seen as important, whereas the Anglo-American tradition is skeptical. Here it is believed that historical methods must be specific and associated whith the subject studied, why there is no general field of "source criticism". Earlier versions of this entry (before june 26, 2008) was about Source criticism in Biblical studies. This is, however just one among many domains of applying source criticism.

In the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere is source evaluating (or information evaluating) also studied interdisciplinary from many different points of view.

Related concepts

• cognitive authority
• credibility (e.g. media credibility)
• critical reading /critical thinking
• information criticism /information quality /information evaluating
• quality of evidence / quality norms in science and scholarship
• relevance
• source reliability
• trustworthiness

Contributing fields

Epistemology

Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluate sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful observations must be grasped by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefullness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources.

Research methodology

Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge is also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998).

Textual criticism

Textual criticism

Psychology

The study of eywitness testimony is an important field of study used, among other purposes, to evaluate testimony i courts. The basics of eyewitness fallibility includes factors such as poor viewing conditions, brief exposure, and stress. More subtle factors, such as expectations, biases, and personal stereotypes can intervene to create erroneous reports. Loftus (1996) discuss all such factors and also shows that eyewitness memory is chronically inaccurate in surprising ways. An ingenious series of experiments reveals that memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned after the fact. New memories can be implanted and old ones unconsciously altered under interrogation.

Library and information science

Study issues like relevance, quality indicators for documents, kinds of documents and their qualities (e.g. scholarly editions) and related issues.

Source criticism in specific domains

Source criticism of Internet sources

Much interest in evaluating Internet sources (such as Wikipedia) is reflected in the scholarly literature of Library and information science and in other fields.

Source criticism in biblical studies

See also Historical criticism in Bible studies.

Source criticism, as the term is used in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or redactor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used as a synonym.

Biblical source criticism originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of Classical antiquity (Homer's Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the Higher Criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

In general, the closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened. In the Bible where a variety of earlier sources have been quoted, the historian seeks to identify and date those sources used by biblical writers as the first step in evaluating their historical reliability.

In other cases, Bible scholars use the way a text is written (changes in style, vocabulary, repetitions, and the like) to determine what sources may have been used by a biblical author. With some reasonable guesswork it is possible to deduce sources not identified as such (e.g., genealogies). Some inter-biblical sources can be determined by virtue of the fact that the source is still extant; e.g., where Chronicles quotes or retells the accounts of the books of Samuel and Kings.

Out of source criticism developed the New Documentary Hypothesis. The New Documentary Hypothesis considers the sources for the Pentateuch, claiming that there were four separate sources that combined to create the first five books of the bible. These sources are the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and priestly. The Jahwist source is characterized by the use of the name YHWH, has a human like God, and is especially concerned with the kingdom of Judah. The Jahwist source is thought to be written c. 950 B.C. The Elohist source is characterized with God being called Elohim, and deals more with the kingdom of Israel. The Elohist source is thought to be written c. 850 B.C. The Deuteronomic source is characterized by a sermon like style mostly concerned with law. The Deuteronomic source is thought to be written c. 721-621 B.C. The Priestly source is characterized by a formal style that is mostly concerned with priestly matters. The Priestly source is thought to be written c. 550 B.C. While there are many opponents to the Documentary Hypothesis, the majority of biblical scholars support it. Some of the other hypotheses that have been raised by source criticism are the fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses.

Related to Source Criticism is Redaction Criticism which seeks to determine how and why the redactor (editor) put the sources together the way he did. Also related is form criticism and tradition history which try to reconstruct the oral prehistory behind the identified written sources.

Famous examples

Tanakh

Also known as the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.

• The division of the book of Isaiah into original Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah

An example of source criticism is found in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah (typically treated by biblical scholars as one book) where scholars identify four types of source material: letters to and from Persian officials, lists of things, the Ezra memoir (where Ezra speaks in first person), and the Nehemiah Memoir (where Nehemiah speaks in first person). It is thus deduced that the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah had access to these four kinds of source material in putting together his book.

Biblical writers at times mention the sources they used. Among the sources mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are: "The Book of the Acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41), "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (1 Kings 14:29 and in a number of other places), "The Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel." (I Kings 14:19 and in a number of other places), "The Book of Jashar" (Josh 10:12-14, 2 Sam 1:18-27, and possibly to be restored via textual criticism to 1 Kings 8:12), and "The Book of the Wars of the LORD" (Num 21:14).

New Testament

Some Bible source critics argue that that it is possible that the Synoptic Gospels Matthew and Luke used a lost Q Document. That the Gospel of John used a hypothetical Signs Gospel is possible, but less agreed upon.

Other works

• Codex Junius
• Gospel Book (British Library, MS Royal 1. B. VII)
• Joshua Roll said to be a reduced version of the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua
• Morgan Beatus
• Codex Calixtinus
• Gospel of Peter

Source criticism in legal studies

Legal positivism is the view that the text of the law should be considered in isolation, while legal realism, legal hermeneutics and feminist legal criticism interprets the law on a broader cultural basis.

Source criticism in Medicine

In medicine there is today a strong school of thought termed "evidence based medicine" (EBM). Here have very explicite criteria been developed on how to evaluate documents. EMB may thus be seen as a theory about source evaluation in medicine.

Literature and references

• Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html

• Katzer, Jeffrey; Cook, Kenneth H. & Crouch, Wayne W. (1998). Evaluating Information: A Guide for Users of Social Science Research. 4 ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

• Leth, Göran & Thurén, Torsten (2000). Källkritik för internet . Stockholm: Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar. (Hentet 2007-11-30).

• Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Revised edition Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. (Original edition:1979 )

• Wilson, Patrick (1983). Second-Hand Knowledge. An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.