{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/3/2014 10:19:08 PM
7
What do you rely on more for gathering information from the past?
Both have their faults. Both have times when they're wrong and the other is right. Each method is imperfect, but they both have their own purpose and both must be used. It would be very ill, academically speaking, to use just one method. With that said, which do you find is more accurate? (overall)
-
It depends on the type of information you're trying to find. Saying you should rely more on one instead of the other is stupid because it depends wholly on what you're wanting to know.
-
The first option may or may not be accurate, but it'll definitely be consistent. The second option could be both inaccurate AND inconsistent.
-
I think human documentation can tell us more about history than rocks.
-
1 ReplyCarbon dating and the like doesn't have bias. "History is written by the winners."
-
We rely on documents more but science is more accurate
-
Both, Ice cores, etc... for pre-human/environmental data, historical accounts for a basic idea of what happened+People's opinions at the time as well as different perspectives on a certain event
-
Dunno therefore god.
