I've recently become more interested in history, as I used to be as a child, but to say I've stumbled upon a little difficulty is something of an understatement.
I mostly tend to look at the likes of qualitative data, anything with evidence to back it up, but I've lost a lot of friends as a result of this. They say things like "Stalin didn't mean to starve people!" / "that's told through a particular lens!" and it has me questioning what I know.
My question is, is there some sort of criteria for filtering sources containing historical data/information? How do I know what I'm reading isn't biased?
My question is, is there some sort of criteria for filtering sources containing historical data/information?
Yep. Just as there is a scientific method, there's a historical method. You'll see in a moment. But before that...
How do I know what I'm reading isn't biased?
Here's something you'll need to understand and reconcile yourself with while doing history. The question is not whether something is biased. They all are. Everything is biased. There's no escaping that. All historical sources are written by humans, charting actions and choices made by humans, done for humans, and these are chronicled by humans for humans.
The problem is that the human is a stupid, selfish, blinkered creature with far too limited a point of view and a head full of contradictions, preconceptions, and prejudices.
The question is, instead, how is the source biased, and how does their bias affect their point of view? I refer you to my usual set of previous posts when asking about bias:
Also, see next post.