Footnotes, endnotes and bibliographies

[Ancestral]

Kendra wrote: "Regarding authors - How many enjoy reading the bibliography at the back of the books? I get a kick out of how many authors who are considered better quality use other authors who aren't considered credible..."

I do. That's probably why my wish list has grown. I have come across so many instances of bad history, incorrect facts, and so on, that I now check the bibliographies to see if authors have used source material, or are regurgitating from a second, or third hand source (which I will also check).

By reading the footnotes/endnotes and bibliographies, I have come across some amazing books and, to be honest, I think it's a habit that has served me well.

[Benjamin]

I have also found some great books referred to or mentioned in other books. In terms of source material, I think the whole idea of an authority on this or that is nonsense. How else do we create and diversify? There are no facts. I respond to an author or not. This is my measure of credibility.

[Ancestral]

Benjamin wrote: "... There are no facts. I respond to an author or not. This is my measure of credibility. ..."

In terms of history: dates of birth, dates of other events, names and so on are all verifiable facts. Any author worth their salt ought to be able to use google at the very least, or check their sources before writing on such subjects.

For example, the author who stated there was an ancient potato goddess of Ireland, when potatoes were only introduced from Peru in the second half of the 17th century. A similar instance is the use of the word Witta (and promoting it as gaelic), which any beginner student of the language will tell you could not exist in the Irish (or even Scots) gaelic language, especially since, in the first instance, the letter "w" does not exist in that language. Grammatical fact.

If an author has got it wrong with just the title of their book, then I am less likely to believe anything else they write. Fact.

[Benjamin]

I maintain that facts do not exist. It is like saying your are responsible for everything you think you know. Do you know that most right-brained individuals are leftists? Nothing is verifiable anywhere anytime. If you and I were to look into each others' eyes it would be the closest thing to a fact, but we would not care if it constituted evidence for anything because there would be a lot more going on. Facts are for academia.

[Lavender]

Facts are only true untl someone proves them wrong. Anything written in a book is opinion of the author based on their knowledge and experience. Whenever I research anything of impotance I always check 3 sources. If any incongruencies I will check additional sources until I'm satisfied.

[Kendra]

I'll second Lavender here. Check facts. Especially if it doesn't make sense. Lazy people don't do that and then believe everything they read. That said, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'll take parts that are legit, and use them, and then ignore the rest.

[Kendra]

Ancestral wrote: do. That's probably why my wish list has grown. I have come across so many instances of bad history, incorrect facts, and so on, that I now check the bibliographies to see if authors have used source material, or are regurgitating from a second, or third hand source (which I will also check).

By reading the footnotes/endnotes and bibliographies, I have come across some amazing books and, to be honest, I think it's a habit that has served me well.
i>

LOL! This is what's happened to me. If I like what was quoted by a secondary author, then I'll go add that to my want list. There's oh so many interesting ideas out there!