Sign In
Ask Question
History
Ayanna Johnson
30 March, 00:34
Why do historians corroborate evidence?
+4
Answers (
1
)
Davian Rosales
30 March, 00:55
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?
Get an answer to your question ✅
“Why do historians corroborate evidence? ...”
in 📙 History if there is no answer or all answers are wrong, use a search bar and try to find the answer among similar questions.
Search for Other Answers
You Might be Interested in
Why were countries so interested in imperialism
Answers (1)
What did King James I give to the Virginia Company to start the colony of Virginia?
Answers (1)
Why did thomas jefferson dispatch the lewis and clark expedition in 1804?
Answers (1)
What greatly influenced the harsh attitude toward homosexuality in the early american colonies?
Answers (1)
Following the war of 1812 the us economy?
Answers (1)
New Questions in History
The covering of the body practiced by women in some Islamic countries
Answers (1)
Why might knowledge of the compass have allowed the Chinese to be the world's greatest sea power at one time?
Answers (1)
In what ways did aristotle influence alexander
Answers (1)
Which court case involved the university of texas at austin encouraging african american students to attend a black law school that had been set up by texas to provide a separate but equal education for black texans?
Answers (1)
In the first half of the 1800s, roughly how many African American slaves were forced to march from the Virginia region to the Deep South where they were sold to Cotton planters?
Answers (1)
Home
»
History
» Why do historians corroborate evidence?
Sign In
Sign Up
Forgot Password?