Sunteți pe pagina 1din 15

External and Internal

Criticisms
External and Internal
Criticisms
-two mental processes which students have to
follow
External Criticism

sometimes called as “lower criticism”


the genuineness of the document
form and appearance and more particularly to question of
authorship and textual circumstances such as time, place
and purpose.
The following questions have been given as
covering matters falling under external criticism:
1. Who was the author, not merely what was his name but what were his
personality, character, position and so forth?
2. What were his general qualifications as a reporter – alertness, character,
bias?
3. What were his special qualifications and disqualifications as a reporter of
the matters here treated?
a. How was he interested in the event related?
b. How was he situated for observation of the facts?
c. Had he the necessary general and technical knowledge for learning and
reporting the events?
4. How soon after the events was the document written? For on purpose the
century of composition may be sufficient; for another, the very hour may
be essential.
5. How was the document written, from memory, after
consultation with others, after checking the facts, or by
combining earlier trial drafts?
6. How is the document relator to other documents?
a. Is it original source; wholly or in part?
b. If the latter, what parts are original; what borrowed;
whence? How credible are the borrowed materials?
c. How and how accurately is the borrowing done?
d. How is the borrowed material changed; how used?
Internal Criticism

Sometimes called as “higher criticism”


The meaning and trustworthiness of the contents of the documents
Value and worth of its contents, its literal meaning and the reliability
of the statements themselves.
May be carried on positively or negatively, the first being the
approach of discovering the real meaning of the text and the second
that approach with a view to find reasons for disbelieving what the
document says thus putting to question the author’s good faith,
motive, competence, accuracy and even his knowledge on the subject
covered.
Questions to ask to assure the value and worth of
conclusions about a document:

1. Who was the author?


2. Is the connection between him and the document a natural and
plausible one?
3. Is the subject one with which he could be expected to have some
degree of familiarity?
4. Could he have been in the place indicated at the time indicated?
5. Was the information given in the document original with him, or did
he copy it from someone else?
6. Are the statements made in the document consistent with known level
of intelligence, education, experience, and individual temperament of
the purported writer?
Additional tests suggested to choose the more reliable
document or statement in case there are more than one, are:

1. Are they independent observations?


2. Are they made by the different persons?
3. Are these observations belonging to different groups with varying
affiliations?
4. Are these observations secured while operating under different
conditions?
Mill’s Five Canons:
Five Methods of Procedure

1. The method of agreement


-if the circumstances contributing to produce a certain
result have a common factor then this is the significant
factor which is probably the cause, or nothing can be a
factor in the absence of which the result is produced.
2. The method of difference
-if several circumstances are identical except for one and
a given result occurs when this factor is present, then
this is the significant factor, or nothing can be a factor in
whose absence the result occurs.
3. The joint method
-the procedure when the two preceding methods are applied to one after
the other and both identify the significant factor.
4. The method of residues
-if some factors are found to be the cause of certain facts of a phenomenon
then if they are eliminated, the factors remaining are the cause of the
remaining part of the phenomenon.
5. The method of concomitant variations
-when two things consistently change or vary each other, the variations in
one are caused by the variations in the other or that their variations are
caused by the some common significant factor
Experiment with People:

not as easy as it is with animals or things because of the many


variable factors entering whenever a person is the object of an
experiment.

Non-laboratory experimentation of group classification:


1. One-group method
2. Parallel-group method
3. Rotating group method
One-group method. A known factor is introduced or withdrawn from the group
and after a reasonable length of time, the resulting change is measured. If there
are several such factors under test the operation is repeated as many times as
there are of them.

Parallel-group method. Also known as equivalent-group method refers to the


experiment wherein two groups are made the subject of the test, one group
serving as the basic or pilot group and the other, as the experimental group. This
method is susceptible to difficulties because no two groups of persons can really
be ever equal or parallel.

Rotation-group method. Two or more groups are used and then keeping one as
the basic or pilot or control group, the other or others are given the
experimental factor. After the observation period, the results are noted. Then
another group becomes in turn the basic one and the others take their turns to
serve as the experimental groups.
Sources of Errors in Experimental Work

1. It is always advisable to have the experiment repeated as many times as


possible and the results to be taken together to get the best possible general
interpretation.
2. The instruments must be in good working conditions to assure readings that
are accurate and reliable.
3. The materials or objects or specimens used must be excellent or at least the
best available of the class and kind and representative of the needed
individuals or group.
4. The experimenter has to exercise all care and precaution not only in setting
up the correct instruments but also in his timing and reading results.
5. The experimenter must not be motivated by any bias nor must he suffer from
any prejudice or preconceived idea defeating altogether the attitude of
objectivity.
6. The subject of experiment, whether person or thing, should be chosen
carefully so as to be sure he is cooperative and not biased.