Sign In
Ask Question
Jamie Gomez
History
8 April, 21:26
Why do historians corroborate evidence?
+5
Answers (
1
)
Alanna Mathews
8 April, 21:49
0
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.[1]
Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method, i. e. the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variations.
These methods are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables, in turn, to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.
In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scotland, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).
1Corroboration broken down 2England and Wales 3See also 4Notes 5References
Corroboration broken down [edit]
If one person says, "this is what I intended by the action I took," and his friend agrees that his actions could have looked like what their friend intended. Then it can be generally agreed that is what happened.
If one person says, "this is what I meant by what I said," and his friend agrees that was their understanding of what was meant by their friend. Then it can be generally agreed that is what was meant.
Think of this like backing up your mate in the playground no matter what they did or said.
Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the Education (Scotland) Act, it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.
Comment
Complaint
Link
Know the Answer?
Answer
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question 👍
“Why do historians corroborate evidence? ...”
in 📗 History if the answers seem to be not correct or there’s no answer. Try a smart search to find answers to similar questions.
Search for Other Answers
You Might be Interested in
1) Which state had the most immigrants in 1996? A. Texas B. Florida C. New York D. California 2) from which two regions did most immigrants come in 1996? A. the Americas and Western Europe B. the Americas and Asia/Oceania C.
Answers (1)
How did religion play a role in the american independence movement?
Answers (1)
Which is not a part of Buddhist religious teachings? A) the Analects B) the Four Noble Truths C) the Noble Eightfold Path D) Nirvana
Answers (1)
Vasco Nunez de Balboa was executed in 1519 because the Spanish throne was threatened by his success and the potential of his discoveries. true or false
Answers (1)
Police and fire departments receive most of their funding from
Answers (1)
New Questions in History
What time period were most slaves brought to america?
Answers (1)
What was one short-term effect of the Emergency Banking Act?
Answers (1)
Was the abopishment of slavwry the main goal of the civil war
Answers (1)
Why were the Germans so upset with the "War Guilt Clause"?
Answers (1)
Describe the origin of corn, and it's importance to Europeans and the Aztecs.
Answers (1)
Home
»
History
» Why do historians corroborate evidence?
Sign In
Sign Up
Forgot Password?