24/7 writing help on your phone
My first source is an article from the website crosstalk and my second source is from the documentary called “Behind the curve” by Daniel J Clark. In conclusion the documentary presents an examination of the flat earth idea from several perspectives. One of them is Mark Sergent. He talks about his life as an active member of the flat earth community. Throughout the film, the flat earthers discuss their experimental approaches to confirming their theory. When director Clark was asked in an interview about the takeaway from the film he said, “My dream would be that when people watch it, they take flat Eartherism as an analogy to something they believe in”.
In the article “7 ways to prove the earth is round” the author Erik Frenz ,which is an English major at the University of Southern Maine, is bored at flat-earthers centers on explaining that something is not true rather than proving that it is. Therefore he writes about several physical evidence against the flat earth theory.
These two sources has many differences in credibility. We have an article written by an upset individual and a seriously produced documentary. The documentary is released on Netflix which indeed is a popular streaming service. However, it does not indicate everything that is published has to be true. Netflix wants to earn money, therefore they publish what they think is attractive for the audience, not factual. The article and the website on the other hand does not have the same goal. The authors purpose is to share his thoughts, knowledge and to reach out to the society, foremost the flat-earthers.
The website itselfs has no advertising or hidden agenda.
Both sources are complex and for this reason difficult to judge whether they are primary sources, by reason of they both partly being based on other sources. Mark Sargent from the documentary has few factual evidence and he almost never refers to other sources. This is very necessary in this case since Mark is not a scientist or authority. This drastically lowers the credibility of the source. Just as Mark, Fritz is not a scientist, however, Fitz refers and uses numerous of scientific sources compared to Mark. This extends Fritz credibility compared to Marks. The article still has flaws though. Erik Fritz is an individual without connection to any authority. Therefore the reason why the article was written is probably based on emotions. As he express himself ” flat-earthers centers on explaining that something is not true rather than proving that it is”.
In one criteria they are both very similar. In both sources is publishing date and publisher clearly. From both sides is also a lots of transparents and information about the publishers private life and educational background. Erik Fritz is possibly clearer with his educational background than Mark Sergent. But still, Mark does not hide that he still lives with his parents. Transparency is often a sign that there is nothing to hide, no hidden agenda. Lastly these two sources has been published at the same decade and had the same relevens as conditions at the time.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment