Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

MRR in Readings in Philippine History: NAME: Banzuela, Lalaine Elyse V. Section: A23

The document summarizes a student's metacognitive reading report on the historical method. [1] The student learned that historical method uses information from historians' references and evidence to write past accounts, questions of nature come from the philosophy of history, and indirect witnesses are mostly the source of history. [2] Statistical reference, argument from analogy, and argument to best explanation were unclear. [3] The student used to think histories were easily made and only based on true experiences, not requiring deeper understanding or consideration of indirect sources.

Uploaded by

John Reige Malto Bendijo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

MRR in Readings in Philippine History: NAME: Banzuela, Lalaine Elyse V. Section: A23

The document summarizes a student's metacognitive reading report on the historical method. [1] The student learned that historical method uses information from historians' references and evidence to write past accounts, questions of nature come from the philosophy of history, and indirect witnesses are mostly the source of history. [2] Statistical reference, argument from analogy, and argument to best explanation were unclear. [3] The student used to think histories were easily made and only based on true experiences, not requiring deeper understanding or consideration of indirect sources.

Uploaded by

John Reige Malto Bendijo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

MRR in READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

NAME: Banzuela, Lalaine Elyse V.


SECTION: A23
Assignment. Historical Method by Louis Gottschalk
Metacognitive Reading Report no.1

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:


1. Three (3) things that I significantly learned from the readings

a. I learned that historical method caters the information which historians use a reference
and evidence to write histories in the form of the past accounts. The question of nature
came from the philosophy of history as a question of epistemology. This provenance is
known as historiography.
b. I also learned that indirect witnesses are mostly the source of history. The stories told
by these witnesses are used by historians as a proof that a certain thing really happened
from the past but not necessarily rely on those. The historian still checks the
authenticity of the testimonies in order to be part of the history itself.
c. Internal Criticism: historical reliability implies that few information is accepted as
authentic, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a
document, the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken
regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's strong perspective in
the documents may consider the liability of a statement but it also needs a deeper
revision into it.
2. Three (3) things that are still unclear to me

a. One of the concepts that I find difficult to understand is the statistical reference
because of its syllogism in probabilistic form.
b. I also find difficulty in understanding the argument from analogy because of its
statistical syllogism.
c. The other topic that I find difficult to understand is the argument to best explanation
because the conditions of the hypothesis is slightly confusing for me.
3. I used to think that…

I used to think that histories are easily made by those people seeking for true
experiences through different involvements of the people in the past. I never
thought that history involves deeper understanding and thinking taken from the
happenings in the past. It is not easily made, it needs to be proven true because
MRR in READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
history will serve as a story of the past that future people will eventually know.
I also thought that histories are only based from the true experiences of people,
I never thought that stories heard from ancient people can also be considered
as part of history.

4. Three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings


a. In what way, history is proven to be true? How does historians prove its

credibility/ authenticity?

b. Why does historians use hearsay evidence as a source of history?

c. What is the difference between broad and particular condition?

You might also like