Discussion Boards

I think histocial figures should be understood within the context of their own time, but that context should not excuse harmful actions. The GOBIE material made me realize that there is a difference between explaining why someone acted a certain way and saying that their actions were morally acceptable. Columbus is a good example because his writings show the European goals of expansion, wealth, and religious influence, but his actions also affected indigenous people who already had their own societies and claims to their land. What stood out to me most was the Valladolid debate between Bartolome de las casas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda. Their disagreement shows that Europeans during this period did not all have the same opinion about the treatment of indigenous people. Las casas argued against indigenous slavery and violent conquest, showing that there were people during that time who recognized the harm caused by colonialism. Because of this, I agree with the idea of using a "middle path". We should not erase historical figures because their actions do not meet modern standard, but we also should not describe them only as heroes because they were historically important. Historical significance and moral goodness are not necessarily the same thing. I think the best way to study history is to understand the circumstance surrounding people's choices while still recognizing the consequence of those choices. This gives us a more complete picture of the past instead of only telling the story from the perspective of the people who had to most power.

I believe a shared identity can help a community say united during difficult times, but it should not require people to have the same religion or background. The Hebrew Bible shows how the covenant gave the Israelites a strong sense of belonging and helped them maintain their identity during periods of hardship. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 shows how important it was for them to pass their beliefs and traditions to future generations. For modern societies, I think that the most useful approach is to have shared values such as respect and equality while allowing people to keep their own cultures and beliefs. I think the communities can have a sense of identity without requiring everyone to be the same.

There were many reason why the Columbian Exchange was positive and negative. This exchange helped develop the world but also enforced forced labor. Historical figures should be judged by the standards of their times because there was a certain upbringing of pride and leadership that was systematically abided by. Therefore historical figures had a felt "duty" to accomplish, lead, and explore the new world, giving themselves a title. In todays society and understand there is more consideration, sfatey regulations, and equality applied to everything .

I think democracy only truly works when universal equality is granted to all people. When you limit it to just the majority it's not truly doing it's job as a democracy. Because of the simple fact that certain voices are excluded. Pericles argues that what makes Athens stand out as a democracy is the fact that the government is in the hands of the whole people and not a minority which if you take a look at the demographics that were excluded like women, slaves & foreigners, isn't exactly true. Like Tylah said regarding GOBIE's point about the omitted voices shows you how rhetoric can make society sound more inclusive than it really is. This can be seen in real life with actual political leaders who claim we live in a democracy yet still excludes certain groups. While I still think a limited democracy can exist it's only scratching the surface of what can be achieved if all voices are heard.

Pericles’ Funeral Oration sounds inspiring when he says Athens is governed by “the many and not the few” and that poverty does not prevent a man from serving the city (Thucydides, 2.37). I believe that Athens should be credited with providing male citizens with an opportunity to participate directly in governance. However, the word “many” stopped me in my tracks. However, later on in his speech, Pericles addresses the widows and states that the best fame a woman can have is not to be talked about by men at all (2.45). Personally, I find this contrast remarkable – when he glorifies men for their involvement in politics but also praises women for staying away from politics. From just reading this one speech, we cannot learn much about what women did in their day-to-day life, but we know whose voices mattered in Pericles’ vision of a democracy. They were those “omitted voices” that GOBIE mentioned. According to our study materials, women, slaves and metics were not allowed to engage in politics in the Assembly, Council, or in the courts. GOBIE also identified the citizenship law of 451 BC, which was introduced by Pericles, and which made it necessary to have both parents as Athenians to be a citizen. If an individual in current times speaks of freedom but does not permit any particular group to participate in it, then, in my opinion, the democracy is faltering. Democracy, according to me, should be measured on actions rather than words. While I know that there is the fact that Athens led the way in something and marked an important step forward in participation from men, I do know that exclusion was also a part of the process as it was embedded in the political offices.

I think a democracy should be judged more by how people are actually treated than by what its leaders say. In Pericles’ Funeral Oration, he describes Athens as a place where the government is in the hands of the many and where citizens have equal justice. However, women, enslaved people, and foreigners were still excluded from political rights. GOBIE’s point about the “omitted voices” stood out to me because it shows how rhetoric can make a society sound more inclusive than it really is. I think exclusion was both a feature and a limitation of early democracy. Athens allowed its citizens to participate, but it had a very limited definition of who counted as a citizen. If a modern leader used similar rhetoric while excluding certain groups from equal rights, I would see that as a problem because the reality would not match the democratic ideals they were promoting. To me, democracy should be based on both participation and inclusion, not just powerful speeches about freedom and equality.

I think whether a covenantal or exclusionary identity is helpful depends on how long we are looking at it. In the short term, it can help a group survive a crisis because it gives people a shared identity, beliefs, and rules. GOBIE’s idea of the covenant as a “portable homeland” stood out to me because even when the Israelites lost their land, they could still keep their identity through their laws and traditions. I think this can become a problem over time if the group starts seeing outsiders as a threat. The Hebrew Bible shows both sides. Deuteronomy 10:18–19 and Leviticus 19:33–34 tell the Israelites to care for and love foreigners. However, Nehemiah 13 shows a much stricter attitude toward outsiders. This shows me that having a strong group identity does not always cause conflict, but it can create conflict when the boundaries become too strict. I think we see something similar with nationalism today. A shared identity can bring people together, especially during difficult times, but it can also make people who are different feel like they do not belong. Because of this, I think modern societies should focus more on a pluralistic and secular approach. We can still have shared values like equality, respect, and human rights without everyone having to share the same religion, culture, or background. The Hebrew experience shows that a shared identity can help a group survive, but in today’s diverse world, pluralism makes more sense for long-term peace and coexistence. Sources McDonnell, E., & Sweeney, M. A. (2024). Covenant in the Hebrew Bible. Bible Odyssey. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/covenant-in-the-hebrew-bible/ Kingston, E., Berkey, B., Delvaux, J., & Kritika Maheshwari. (2023). PPE Society Seventh Annual Meeting 2023. In PPE Society Seventh Annual Meeting 2023 [Conference-proceeding]. https://ppesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3833/2023/10/2023-Program-10-29.pdf Zubrzycki, G. (2024, January 24). Pluralism, secularism, and Anti/Philo-Semitism. Contending Modernities. https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/theorizing-modernities/pluralism-secularism-and-anti-philo-semitism/

I think that modern digital tools, particularly AI, can amount to a kind of new humanism since people can use them to improve their abilities as long as they remain responsible for their own thinking. Just as Renaissance humanists stressed learning, individual potential, and sound judgment, AI can promote these values by helping people explore and understand difficult concepts. On the other hand, it may run counter to these values if people take its answers at face value without questioning or understanding them. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man links human capacity to the choices people make. He states that the qualities which people can develop depend on the ones they decide to cultivate. In his argument, self-improvement is both an opportunity and a responsibility within a religious conception of life. This is relevant to AI because simply having access to a strong tool does not mean someone will become more knowledgeable; people still have to put in the effort to learn and decide how to use the information they are given. In Of the Education of Children, Michel de Montaigne also gives a valuable point of view by comparing learners to bees, which collect material from various flowers and then turn it into honey. Similarly, students should draw ideas from a variety of sources and turn them into their own understanding. He is conveying that education should aim to develop sound judgment rather than merely fill someone's memory with information. When it comes to AI, this implies that receiving an answer is only the beginning; the user has to examine the ideas, understand the evidence, and then decide what they really believe. GOBIE AI highlights how both the technology's capabilities and its associated issues. It puts emphasis on human centered AI collaboration and human empowerment, portraying AI as a means of enhancing people's capabilities. At the same time, it claims the system can think strategically and make decisions. This description of technology should address the extent to which thinking should be left to technology. While GOBIE AI offers evidence of the company's objectives, it does not demonstrate that the platform improves each user's judgment. In my view, GOBIE AI supports humanist ideals only if people carefully assess its recommendations and keep control of their own decisions. A student working on a school project is a good example of this. An AI could help by recommending a topic by explaining a difficult passage, or offering an alternative point of view. This kind of assistance may give them a starting point, but they still have to read the sources and develop an argument they can explain. If they copy the whole response without understanding it, they might complete the assignment without gaining much knowledge. Although the essay may appear satisfactory, that does not mean their writing or reasoning has improved. In my opinion, AI can help promote Renaissance humanist values, provided people use it properly. Pico stresses the importance of developing human potential by making our choices, whereas Montaigne maintains that the purpose of learning is to enhance a person's judgment. Both views remind us that education involves more than acquiring information. AI may help us to formulate better questions and to investigate new and unfamiliar ideas, but it is up to us to decide what is sensible and why. If its use enables us to think more independently, it can contribute to the idea of a new humanism; but if we end up unable or unwilling to function without it, we risk losing the independence humanists prized.

The current crisis of scientific authority is similar to the conflict Galileo faced in the 17th century because both involve disagreements over who or what should be trusted when established beliefs conflict with new evidence. However, the two situations are not fundamentally the same. During the Scientific Revolution, resistance to new scientific ideas was closely connected to established religious, political, and intellectual institutions. Today, challenges to scientific authority are more decentralized and can spread through digital platforms, social media, and online communities. The Scientific Revolution therefore provides an important historical comparison, but modern challenges require us to consider how information technology has changed the way competing claims gain authority. Galileo's experience shows why evidence alone does not always immediately overcome established authority. His telescopic observations challenged important parts of the traditional understanding of the universe, but the conflict also involving existing religious and intellectual structures. Thomas F. Mayer’s research on the Roman Inquisition’s 1616 precept shows that Galileo was ordered to stop defending heliocentrism, while also emphasizing that historians must carefully examine multiple documents before reaching conclusions about what happened. This supports GOBIE’s argument that evaluating a claim requires examining evidence rather than simply accepting the position of an authority. At the same time, the Scientific Revolution was more complicated than a simple battle between scientific evidence and religious belief. Ron Naylor’s research argues that Galileo’s Copernican beliefs influenced the development of his ideas about motion, showing that scientific discoveries developed through connections between theoretical ideas and empirical evidence. This complicates GOBIE’s emphasis on observation because evidence does not exist separately from the theories and assumptions scientists use to interpret it. Mario Biagioli provides another important perspective. His research on Galileo’s telescopic observations shows that even scientists committed to producing knowledge could be influenced by competition and concerns about receiving credit. Galileo sometimes restricted access to powerful telescopes and information about how to construct them because he wanted to protect his discoveries. This demonstrates that scientific authority has never depended entirely on objective evidence; social relationships, reputation, institutions, and incentives have also influenced how knowledge is produced and accepted. The major difference today is the speed and structure through which competing claims spread. In the 17th century, institutions such as the Church, universities, courts, and scholarly communities had significant influence over which ideas received attention. Today, a person can encounter scientific claims from researchers, governments, influencers, anonymous accounts, or AI-generated content within seconds. Digital echo chambers can repeatedly expose people to claims that agree with their existing beliefs, even when those claims have weak evidence. Unlike Galileo’s situation, modern challenges to scientific authority do not necessarily come from one powerful institution. They can emerge from many disconnected communities and become widespread through digital networks. This makes GOBIE’s four principles especially useful today. Empirical evidence helps separate claims from the reputation of the person making them. Falsifiability requires asking what evidence could prove a claim wrong. Transparent methodology allows other people to examine how a conclusion was reached. Finally, continuous updating recognizes that scientific knowledge can change when stronger evidence becomes available. The history of Galileo demonstrates that these principles are important, but it also shows that scientific authority is influenced by human institutions and incentives. Therefore, the modern crisis is historically comparable but fundamentally different in structure. Both periods demonstrate that established authority can resist or compete with new evidence, but the modern information environment has made the production and spread of competing claims much more decentralized and rapid. Studying Galileo does not provide a simple answer to today's problems, but it teaches an important method: evaluate evidence, examine how the evidence was produced, consider the interests and context of those presenting it, and remain willing to revise conclusions when better evidence appears.

I would say that a modern company should not treat employees unfairly just because they have different ranks or position. In the code of Hammurabi, people were treated differently depending on their social class, and the laws were created to keep order within Mesopotamian society. The social position of a person could affect how they were treated under the law, which shows that maintaining order was considered very important. I understand why a company might need different ranks and rules to keep everything organized, but I don't think having a hierarchy should mean that certain employees are treated unfairly. A company can have managers, supervisors, and regular employees who all have different responsibilities while still making sure everyone is treated with the same respect. For example, a manager may have more authority than an employee, but that should not mean the employee deserves fewer basic rights or opportunities. I think this is where modern workplaces are different from the society shown in the code of Hammurabi. Rules are still important for keeping order, but fairness should also be considered when those rules are created and enforced. The Mesopotamian idea of state enforced order can still be seen in modern workplaces through company policies and different levels of authority, but those rules should not be used as an excuse for unfair treatment.

I agree both bias and left out details can significantly shape how evidence is interpreted. a trained historian usually analyzes a sources author, purpose, historical context, and potential bias while cross referencing it with other primary and secondary materials. an average digital media consumer might encounter a leaked document online and instantly accept it as proof without looking into the broader context.

A whole society having a single identity is kind of hard to think of. In my opinion everyone is too different for something like an "exclusive identity", especially when it comes to something as personal as religion or politics. I believe it would inherently cause conflict definitely because what happens if there's a group of citizens who don't align with the rest of the country's views. My example of this is what happened during the Soviet Union, countries would be forced to follow their beliefs and laws. Measures were even taken to replace leaders to strengthen the Soviet's hold on a country. If we look at the effect this had on the people, a lot of these countries didn't have a lot of money hence most of it's people didn't either. If you put that on top of the fact that they were essentially being forced to live a completely new way than they used to, we can all assume they weren't the happiest.

One cannot expunge people of the past on the grounds of contemporary moral judgments, but it is necessary to analyze them extensively. As far as the Columbian Exchange is concerned, its result includes the connection between the Old World and New World in regard to trade relations, agriculture, and invention, however, violence, exploitation of indigenous people, enslavement, and spread of diseases accompanied it. Columbus made an emphasis on the possibility of conquest and enrichment provided by the discoveries he made, while Bartolomé de las Casas challenged the enslavement and violent conquest of the native people and considered it inappropriate. Thus, there was a discussion about appropriateness of such behavior in those times. GOBIE helped me learn not to criticize the past without taking into account the historical context, but the context cannot serve as an excuse for harmful activities. Despite the importance of Columbus' discoveries from the historical perspective, I still do not think he can be only seen as an heroic discoverer. In summary, the optimal strategy is to analyze people in history in their context but with an understanding that humans have certain basic levels of dignity. Context will help us understand how and why something happened, but not hinder us from analyzing its results.

In my personal view, democratization of information is good for the well-being of society; nevertheless, there can be some issues if people do not check the provided information. The printing press at the time of the Reformation allowed Martin Luther to distribute his *Ninety-Five Theses* and questioned the power of the Catholic Church. The same case takes place in relation to the use of social media when individuals are able to spread their information quickly to many viewers; however, the problem of spreading false information can arise. As it was shown in the course material GOBIE, the fact that people have additional information does not mean that it is true. Therefore, comparing and critical thinking are needed. In general, I am sure that democratization of information is useful for the interests of society because it offers people more voices; however, individuals should analyze information themselves and cannot accept everything that they find on the Internet.

Generative AI can be perceived as the product of New Humanism as long as people remain actively engaged in thought processes. Renaissance humanism was focused on human potential, curiosity, education, judgment and ability to obtain knowledge and develop it via research. Generative AI can assist humans in their endeavors in this respect – finding relevant information, organizing thoughts and making new discoveries. On the other hand, depending on this technology too much, leaving it the burden of doing the thinking and coming up with creative ideas, can deprive people of the individual freedom promoted by Renaissance humanists. The Oration on the Dignity of Man written by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola is relevant to this question in that it highlights the freedom and flexibility of man in his actions. People do not follow the predestined way of life; they can choose whatever path they prefer. I believe that this point is related to the current role of AI in our lives – people can use it to learn something new or see the problem from a different angle but in the end it is up to an individual to determine what he/she believes and thinks about the issue. Erasmus provides another interesting approach in his work "The Praise of Folly". According to him, one has to question those who believe themselves to be wise without examining their personal beliefs and knowledge. This is connected with the problem of AI because it means that having an answer quickly does not equal comprehending it. There is a possibility that an answer will be right by AI standards, but there is still room for questioning and further evaluation of the data. People who trust everything produced by AI will seem to be knowledgeable, but will not become it themselves. My experience with using GOBIE AI made me understand how useful technology can be for people, without taking their intelligence away from them. Technology can help to break down complicated pieces of information, structure them and organize the process of learning. However, a responsibility for the evaluation of the provided information stays on the user. For example, a student can use AI to come up with different topics for the assignment and then research them, take some position and explain it. This issue arises when AI becomes a replacement for personal effort and development. When a person copies an answer made by AI without any understanding of how it works and without developing personal critical skills, they fail to improve their thinking and creativity. This means that AI is not just helping them – it replaces their efforts of doing the work independently. It contradicts the principle of Renaissance humanism which claims that education and personal development are important for one to be able to do something independently. Overall, I think that digital tools of the present day have both potential to support and contradict Renaissance humanism. AI can become a great help to people who want to expand their capabilities, but it should not replace them as the origin of thoughts. Pico's ideas about the potential of humans and Erasmus's idea about questioning knowledge show how important it is. For me, the difference between the New Humanism and usage of AI is in the way who is leading. If humans will use AI to increase their curiosity, creativity, and knowledge and keep questioning and making personal decisions, it may serve humanist ideals.

A shared identity could serve the purpose of allowing a community to withstand the effects of any crisis, yet modern-day governments must adopt a pluralistic and secular approach. Individuals must be free to maintain their cultural practices, while everybody should be treated equally irrespective of his/her faith and origins. The Hebrew Bible reflects the power of having a common covenant as well as the negative outcomes of establishing rigid boundaries by a particular community. The book of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 instructs the Israelites to teach their children the commandments and integrate them into their lives. In GOBIE, this is described as maintaining identity through remembrance and rituals, which is particularly significant for communities which lack political independence and land. The Bible Encyclopedia of Judaism gives an example of the Babylonian captivity. However, biblical texts offer multiple answers concerning how to relate to foreigners in a community. On the one hand, Leviticus 19:33-34 commands the Israelites to treat foreigners well since they had once been foreigners themselves. On the other hand, Ezra 10 asks people to separate themselves from foreign wives. GOBIE sees Ezra as the example of a community trying to preserve its identity. I agree, but at the same time, I find the question raised by GOBIE relevant to the point: whose perspectives are excluded? In my opinion, the message here is that shared values and pluralism go together well enough. Society can cultivate the sense of responsibility, compassion, and caring towards its neighbors without forcing everybody to adhere to the same religious story. The Leviticus' example proves that acceptance of foreigners can become part of the society's moral identity in its globalizing world. From my standpoint, the message from all of this is that shared values and pluralism are not mutually exclusive. The society can inculcate people with a sense of responsibility, empathy, and compassion towards their fellow humans without imposing a religious belief on them all. The book of Leviticus demonstrates that welcoming strangers can in itself become an essential part of morality. How would you draw the line between preserving culture and discrimination?

Regarding public opinion of government and a modern news outlet promoting an ideology supported by a classified document from 50 years ago, the document can be used as a primary source. It supports the idea being pushed, yet it depends on how this ideology is supported historically and in the context of the past and present. What it cannot automatically be trusted to be is not predatory propaganda or unbiased evidence. It is conditionally primary simply because it only supports ONE view; it is unknown if this document was part of a movement or a singular being, if it was translated, declassified, or even leaked. As a historian, to address potential biases or omissions in the document, it would be examined in the context of the time period, religion, ideology, classism, and societal standards. I'd verify the historical pattern, bias pattern, compare and contrast it with similar texts in the same period, and look for what can be proven and what can not be proven. An example of historical pattern seeking while reading the prompt: it heavily reminded me of a YouTube creator, Amimiso, titled "Princess Gaoyang: A Spoiled Daughter's Treasonous Love Affair | Tea with Amy," on Chinese history during the Tang Dynasty. Princess Gaoyang in modern stories is characterized by her spoiled nature, pursuit of adulterous forbidden love with a monk, and later treason against the emperor, often used in modern media. Amimiso in the videos points out discrepancies in the story, using The Old Tang Book and the New Book of Tang. Amimiso mentioned the detail of "The New Book of Gaoyangs infamy was 400 years after her death while in the book of Tang there are not as many details...Historians debate if Gaoyang was a part of a smear campaign." (Princess Gaoyang: A Spoiled Daughter's Treasonous Love Affair | Tea with Amy."(19-36 - 20:09.) Amimiso shows, as a historian, that she used critical thinking and sought out societal biases and context by including the allure of Gaoyang's story being a smear campaign. As a historian, it is also important to compare and contrast, which was very evident in researching discrepancies for credibility. Instead of being a consumer and taking Gaoyang's story at face value, Amimiso took the time to look for a primary and secondary source. This shows that in the present time there has indeed been an example of using a source as primary, such as the New Book of Tang, which came out in modern times, used by modern Chinese dramas yet still being unreliable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUEvaDvySU

I think the 50-year-old classified document can be considered a primary source, but that does not automatically make it credible for the current claim. since the document is 50 years old I will look at who created it, why was created, and what information could be biased or left out I will also compare with other sources to see if the information support the claim being made today. Gobie AI could help point out possible bias, missing information, and context , but I will still check the actual sources myself. An academic Historian will carefully study the document and compare it with other evidence before making a conclusion. A digital media consumer might see the document in the news article and believe it supports the claim without looking deeper into it. Overall, the document could be useful evidence, but it should be carefully checked before being used to support a current government policy .

After reading the Book of the Dead and GOBIE AI’s response, I don’t really agree that Maat is a better foundation for ethics than modern secular values. I understand why Maat was important to the Egyptians because it gave people rules for how they should live and treat others. But I don’t think someone needs religion or a belief in an afterlife to know what is right and wrong. I agree more with the idea of individual achievement. I think it is okay to want a good career, make money, be successful, and have goals for yourself. Wanting those things does not mean you are selfish. I think you can work hard and focus on your own success while still being a decent person and treating other people with respect. I also don’t think having one religious system automatically makes a society better or more stable. People today can have different beliefs and still agree on basic things like being honest, following laws, and not hurting other people. To me, the best approach is being able to focus on your own achievements while still being a good person. You shouldn’t have to give up your goals to care about other people. I think both can exist at the same time.

The ancient Egyptians believed that by living a good life, people should uphold Maat, which is justice, balance, order, and truth. In the book of the dead, the heart of the individual is measured against the feather of Maat. This implies that living a good life cannot be demonstrated solely by richness or prosperity. The individual must explain how he/she behaved towards other people as well. As explained in the GOBIE AI discussion, the system is linked to an overall spiritual and societal system. In my opinion, the contemporary secular standards of success in a career, material possessions and legacy do not provide any assurance for stability of an ethical foundation. It may vary among different societies and different generations. On the one hand, an individual can be successful in a career, but he can be selfish and harm other people. As a college student, I understand the importance of being successful in life in order to have security for oneself and chances to assist the families. But the success cannot be an ethical foundation because people who consider themselves important in terms of grades, career or success will see the competition more valuable than people.

I believe that a mix of both the Egyptian spiritual balance and the modern focus on individual achievement is the best way to achieve a good life. Focusing on one's own goals and achievements is important as it helps nurture a person's self worth along with their sense of accomplishment. While Spiritual balance can help someone reach an equally important level of inner peace and solace. That isn't built on materialistic or idealistic ambitions. This in turn can lead to things like a strong sense of truth, justice and moral ethics.

I believe that secular values can provide a more stable foundation for ethics in a modern society because they can apply to people with different religious beliefs. In ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma'at focused on balance, truth, justice, and living a good life. The Book of the Dead shows how a persons actions were connected to their judgement in the afterlife. This gave Egyptians a strong reason to follow moral rules. Modern societies are made up of people with many different beliefs, so if they relied only on religious requirements it may not work for everyone as it may for some. Secular values such as fairness, respect, responsibility, and equality can be shared by people regardless of their religion. I believe that both options can motivate people to the right thing. However, when you have a diverse group of people, by focusing on shared secular values it makes it easier for everyone to cooperate, which would keep the society stable over time.

I believe that the democratization of information can serve the public good, but only when people take responsibility for evaluating the information they receive. The Reformation shows that giving more people access to information can challenge powerful institutions and allow new ideas to spread. However, it can also create confusion, misinformation, and division when people accept information without questioning it. Martin Luther’s *Ninety-Five Theses* is a good example of how increased access to information could challenge established authority. Luther criticized the selling and preaching of indulgences and argued that true repentance could not simply be purchased. His ideas became much more influential because the printing press allowed arguments and pamphlets to circulate beyond traditional Church-controlled networks. GOBIE and our class lecture explain that printing did not create Luther’s ideas, but it made them easier and faster to spread. This helped more people encounter different religious arguments, but it also contributed to religious fragmentation. I see a similar pattern with social media today. Information can reach millions of people almost instantly, which gives ordinary people more opportunities to share their opinions and challenge ideas. At the same time, algorithms can repeatedly show people content similar to what they already believe, creating ideological “silos.” This can make people less likely to encounter different perspectives. Like the printing press, social media does not automatically make information true or false. The technology changes how information spreads, while people still have to decide whether the information is reliable. Catherine makes a good point that rapidly spreading information is not always an advantage because false information and propaganda can spread along with accurate information. I would add that this is why the goal should not necessarily be to return to one source of authority. Instead, people need stronger skills for comparing sources and checking evidence. The Reformation demonstrates that disagreement can lead to important changes, but it can also make consensus more difficult when people receive completely different versions of reality. The Vatican’s response to Luther also shows the other side of this issue. The papacy attempted to respond to Luther’s arguments and eventually condemned his teachings and excommunicated him. This demonstrates how challenging established authority can create institutional conflict as well as new ideas. Overall, I believe democratized information can benefit the public, but access alone is not enough. People need to question sources, compare evidence, and use their own judgment. The main lesson I take from the Reformation and GOBIE is that **more information gives people more power, but that power is only useful when people know how to evaluate what they are seeing.

I would say that a 50-year old classified document could possibly be a credible primary source but only to understand the time period in which it was created.According to historical methodology a primary source comes directly from the time period it was being studied, this makes a document a primary source for seeing how the government acted,thought,or decided back when it was written It might give us useful evidence and help us understand about past government actions but that wouldn't necessarily be a trustworthy primary source to support a claim regarding today's government actions and policies.I would compare this to other primary and secondary sources rather than just taking it as the final word.This shows that primary sources can't always be trusted. An academic historian and a digital media consumer might look at the same document differently , an academic historian would probably ask questions like “who wrote this document?”, “Why was it written?” and also investigate the document’s historical context and the purpose behind it. An academic historian would also most likely compare it to other types of evidence before coming to a conclusion.

I believe that the modern "democratization" of information had served the public good due to the fact that people were able to challenge ongoing conflicts in society. Although in any date in time, main sources of media from printing press to now social media false information, and interpretations are usually displayed and viral to public. Therefore things such as propaganda (for illiterate majority) and information spread in a schemingly manner, which quickly became a negative aspect on reforming, showing having rapidly spread information/ news is not always an upside. As for the negative aspect, another positive may be that through the press Matin Luther's ideals and arguments were spread, educating more masses then before and more rapdily.

In my opinion in Modern corportion today today should not discriminate against employees due to their ranks or moral status I agree that there are some sort of system in place for inorganization in order to run smoothly but I do not think believe maintaining discipline should mean to some people get priority over others. one of the important aspects which also define the way people were treated in the code of a hammurabi was the social status . For example, like we mentioned in clas about the code 14, it states that " In case of person kidnaps a minor son of another one yourself should be so suspected to the dead penalty" , but as we analyzed this law during the class discussion, we realized how minor of high class citizens and minor of a poor people are treated differently. A minor of high class are treated as valuable assests whereas minor pf poor are treated as invaluable. In my opinion this law is unfair because the importance of a person should not depend on his her family is well the status. A company can have manager supervisors and employees with different responsibilities. However, all of them must be accorded to human to basic rights as human beings. For instance, a manager may exercise more power because of his or her position however it does not mean that he/she is allowed to have abuse the worker's right. From the Govi AI topic I have been able to comprehend that Hammurabi's Law was formulated in order to ensure order in Mesopotamia. However, having examine the code of Hammurabi closely, one is able to understand how this law is affected within different classes within Mesopotamian society. This also shows that stablity doesn't guarantee stability. To conclude, justice is better for individuals than an oder achieved through justice. There must always be rules and power distributed in the office enviroment and workplaces; however, that should be equally disturbed rather than abusing the power.

After reading the Code of Hammurabi and the GOBIE AI response, I do not think treating employees differently just because of their rank would be justifiable in a modern workplace, unless it was for the benefit and progress of the business or company. In the prologue of the Code of Hammurabi, Hammurabi says his goal was “to cause justice to prevail in the land” and to make sure “the strong might not oppress the weak.” I found this interesting because even though his society had different social classes, he still said that justice was important and that the weak should be protected. The Code also shows how a person’s social status could affect how they were treated. For example, Law 196 says that if a man destroys another man’s eye, his eye shall be destroyed. However, Laws 198 and 199 had different punishments when the person who was injured was from a lower social class or was enslaved. This shows that people were not always treated equally under the law. I can understand why having different ranks and rules may have helped keep Hammurabi’s society organized. I also understand GOBIE’s point about hierarchy being important for keeping order. In a modern company, I think some differences based on rank can make sense if they are needed for the business to operate properly. For example, a manager may have more authority because they have more responsibilities. However, I do not think someone should be treated unfairly just because they have a lower position. Companies need rules and structure to be successful, but I think there should still be a balance between keeping order and treating people fairly. The idea of state-enforced order may have made sense in ancient Mesopotamia, but I do not think it would be justifiable in a modern democratic workplace if it was only being used to treat certain employees as less important. The Code also shows how a person’s social status could affect how they were treated. For example, Law 196 says that if a man destroys another man’s eye, his eye shall be destroyed. However, Laws 198 and 199 had different punishments when the person who was injured was from a lower social class or was enslaved. This shows that people were not always treated equally under the law. I can understand why having different ranks and rules may have helped keep Hammurabi’s society organized. I also understand the point GOBIE made about hierarchy being important for keeping order. However, I do not think keeping order should mean that some people are treated as less important than others. In a modern workplace, I think it is fine for people to have different positions and responsibilities. A manager will obviously have more authority than an entry-level employee, but that does not mean they should have more basic rights or be treated better. Companies need rules and structure, but I think fairness should still matter. The idea of state-enforced order may have made sense in ancient Mesopotamia, but I do not think it would be justifiable to use it to support unfair treatment in a modern democratic workplace.

If you ask me institutional stability can never outweigh a person's individual value. Just take a look at what The Code of Hammurabi says with it's laws surrounding slavery. take law number 15 for example. Which states that If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death. Already we have more people loosing their lives because of a lack of individual equity. than they would if there was any Another thing to take into consideration is how back in the Babylonians age slaves had no choice but to work. Nowadays humans have the right to work however much they want. So they have no need taking abuse from someone else if they have a choice. So looking at things from a historical perspective wouldn't work in the modern day in this case.

I believe modern digital tools, especially generative AI, can be considered a form of “New Humanism,” but only when people use them to expand their abilities instead of allowing them to replace their own thinking. Renaissance humanism focused on individual potential, reason, judgment, and the ability of people to shape themselves through learning. In my opinion, AI can support these ideas, but it can also contradict them when people become completely dependent on technology. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s *Oration on the Dignity of Man* supports the idea that humans have the ability to shape themselves through their own choices and judgment. Pico describes human beings as having the freedom to determine their own path rather than being limited to one fixed nature. This connects to AI because technology can give people more opportunities to learn, create, and explore ideas. However, the person still needs to make the final decisions. If someone simply accepts whatever AI gives them without thinking about it, they are not really using their own potential. Erasmus also provides an important perspective in *The Praise of Folly*. He criticizes people who believe they are wise simply because they possess knowledge or can present themselves as intelligent. This relates strongly to generative AI because AI can produce information that sounds convincing even when the user does not fully understand it. Having an AI-generated answer does not automatically mean that a person has learned something. The user still needs to question the information, check the evidence, and understand the ideas for themselves. GOBIE AI also helped me see both sides of this issue. Its analysis explains how modern technology can connect people to information and make it easier to turn ideas into something practical. This supports the idea that AI can expand human capabilities. At the same time, using GOBIE showed me that AI should be treated as a tool rather than an authority. The information it provides still needs to be examined and evaluated by the person using it. For example, using AI to brainstorm ideas for an essay can help someone get started, but the student should still develop their own argument, choose their evidence, and understand what they are writing. On the other hand, copying an entire AI-generated essay without understanding it takes away the intellectual effort that humanism values. In that situation, the technology is not expanding the individual's abilities; it is replacing them. Overall, I believe AI can align with Renaissance humanism when it strengthens human creativity, curiosity, and learning. However, it contradicts the humanist ideal when people allow it to make decisions or think for them. Pico's emphasis on human freedom and Erasmus's criticism of false wisdom both show why individual judgment is so important. The technology itself is not what determines whether AI is humanistic. **The way humans choose to use it does.** If people remain curious, question AI's answers, and use their own judgment, generative AI can become a modern tool for human potential rather than a replacement for it.

The Columbian Exchange created connections between continents that permanently transformed the world. Plants, animals, diseases, people, technologies, and economic systems moved across the Atlantic, helping create the foundations of an increasingly interconnected global economy. Yet this transformation also involved conquest, forced labor, enslavement, displacement, disease, and ecological destruction. This raises an important ethical question: if modern human-rights standards were applied to the explorers and empires of the 15th and 16th centuries, should their achievements be stripped of their status in historical narratives? Historical figures should not be erased simply because their actions violate modern ethical standards, but historical context should also not be used to excuse severe human suffering. As Gobie argues, judging the past requires a "middle path": historians should understand the social pressures and perspectives of the time while maintaining a moral framework capable of recognizing objectively harmful and inhumane actions. Therefore, historical figures should be understood according to the morality and circumstances of their own time, but their actions should also be evaluated according to the universal principles of human dignity. Context should explain historical behavior without becoming a justification for it. Christopher Columbus’s own writing demonstrates why historical context is necessary but insufficient. In his 1493 letter to Raphael Sanchez, Columbus described the lands and people he encountered while presenting his voyages as part of the Spanish monarch’s expansion. He described taking possession of islands for Spain and renamed places that already had Indigenous populations. This primary source provides direct evidence of Columbus’s worldview rather than forcing historians to reconstruct his intentions entirely from later accounts. From the perspective of 15th-century European imperialism, claiming territory for a monarch and seeking wealth for Christian expansion were not necessarily considered immoral by European rulers. European states competed for territory and resources, and religious expansion was often connected to political authority. Understanding these pressures is therefore necessary to avoid the kind of presentism Gobie warns about:judging the past as though historical figures lived within the exact same social and intellectual environment as people today. However, understanding Columbus’s worldview does not require accepting it as morally justified. His actions affected people who had their own societies, political structures, beliefs, and claims to their land. The fact that European imperial expansion was accepted by powerful European institutions does not mean that every individual involved had no alternative. In fact, evidence from the period demonstrates that Europeans themselves disagreed about the treatment of Indigenous people. The clearest evidence of this disagreement is the Valladolid debate of 1550, in which Bartolomé de las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued over whether Spanish conquest of Indigenous people could be justified. A surviving 1552 account of the debate states that Sepúlveda argued that the conquests were lawful and that Indigenous people could be subjected to Spanish rule, while Las Casas argued that the conquests were tyrannical, unjust, and unlawful. The debate was held before theologians and jurists in Valladolid, showing that the majority of conquest was being seriously contested within the period itself. This is significant because it complicates the argument that colonial violence was simply “normal for the time.” The historical evidence shows that Europeans did not hold one unanimous position on whether Indigenous people could legitimately be conquered or subjected to Spanish rule. Las Casas’s position can be examined more specifically through his 1542 statement to Charles V. In the document, he called for the abolition of Indigenous slavery and the encomienda system, the incorporation of Indigenous people as free vassals of the Crown, and the end of armed conquests. Rather than simply criticizing Spanish treatment of Indigenous people, Las Casas proposed a different approach to colonial rule, one based on peaceful evangelization and the recognition of Indigenous people as free subjects. His position is especially valuable because he was not a modern historian looking backward several centuries later. He was a person living within the colonial world itself who argued that its treatment of Indigenous people was morally wrong. His writings therefore provide evidence that moral alternatives existed within the historical period being judged. Las Casas’s A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies also demonstrates why primary sources must be evaluated carefully rather than accepted without question. In describing Spanish colonization, he presented detailed accounts of violence, killings, forced labor, and the destruction of Indigenous communities. His account must still be evaluated critically because he had a clear purpose: persuading authorities to change colonial policies. That does not mean it should be dismissed. Instead, historians should consider his perspective, motives, and proximity to the events while comparing his testimony with other evidence. This illustrates an important part of historical analysis: a source can contain bias while still providing valuable evidence. Las Casas’s account is therefore useful not only for understanding the suffering he described, but also for understanding how contemporary observers interpreted and challenged Spanish colonial practices. Taken together, these sources make the ethical problem more complicated than simply deciding whether Columbus was a “man of his time.” Columbus’s letter reveals the assumptions and ambitions behind European expansion, while the Valladolid debate and Las Casas’s writings demonstrate that those assumptions were not universally accepted. This means that historical context can explain why colonial systems developed without proving that every person involved was incapable of recognizing their harm. At the same time, the existence of contemporary opposition does not mean that every European who participated in colonization should be judged by exactly the same standards or that the modern world has achieved perfect morality. The evidence instead supports a more precise judgment: historical circumstances shaped the choices available to people such as Columbus, but those circumstances do not eliminate moral disagreement or individual agency. Historians can therefore recognize the limitations of the period while still asking what choices historical figures made, what alternatives were available, and what consequences resulted from those choices. A counteragrument, however, is that applying modern universal human-rights standards to historical figures can unfairly turn history into a search for people who meet today’s moral expectations. Modern concepts of universal human rights developed through long historical processes, and people in the 15th and 16th centuries could not have anticipated every principle that exists today. If historians judged every historical figure exclusively according to modern standards, they could end up treating the present as morally perfect while ignoring the fact that contemporary societies also have serious ethical failures. This would create the very kind of bias that Gobie’s warning about presentism is intended to prevent. Nevertheless, this counterargument is not strong enough to abandon contemporary ethical standards altogether. There is a difference between demanding that historical figures follow every modern social norm and recognizing fundamental human dignity. Historians do not need to pretend that Columbus should have understood 21st century international law in order to criticize the enslavement, coercion, or deliberate mistreatment of human beings. Furthermore, the existence of contemporary critics such as Las Casas strengthens this position because it shows that criticism of colonial abuses was not exclusively a modern invention. The most defensible approach is therefore not to judge the past exactly as though it were the present, but to combine contextual understanding with ethical judgement. This approach also changes how historical “achievements” should be presented. Columbus should not be erased from history, because his voyages were historically consequential and studying them helps explain the enormous transformations that followed. However, describing him simply as a heroic explorer who “discovered” America would create an incomplete narrative because Indigenous societies already existed there. Similarly, the Columbian exchange should be recognized as a major turning point in world history without treating globalization as an uncomplicated achievement. The same networks that moved crops and animals between continents also facilitated exploitation, demographic catastrophe, and environmental change. Historical significance and moral goodness are not the same thing. Ultimately, historical figures should be judged through a balance between historical context and universal ethical standards. Gobie’s “middle path” is persuasive because it avoids two opposite mistakes: presentism, which can make the past impossible to understand on its own terms, and moral relativism, which can make almost any historical action excusable because it was accepted by some people at the time. The evidence of Columbus, Las Casas, and the Valladolid debate demonstrates why this balance matters. Columbus’s writings reveal the assumptions and ambitions of European expansion, while Las Casas and the debate at Valladolid demonstrate that alternatives to exploitation and conquest were being argued for within the same historical world. Therefore, historical figures should not have their achievements erased, but their achievements should not be allowed to overshadow the human costs associated with them. The purpose of historical judgement should be neither condemnation for its own sake nor preservation of heroic reputations. It should be honest interpretation: understanding why people acted as they did while remaining willing to say when those actions caused unjustifiable harm. In this sense, historical context should explain the past, but it should never silence the people who suffered within it.

A 50-year-old declassified document can serve as a credible primary source. However, it should not be the only source used to make a claim about a current government policy. The document was created at the time when the events happened. It provides historians important information about what the government knew or believed in at the time. However, one should consider whether the author of the document includes biases based on their perspective. I would compare the historical classified documents with other primary sources as GOBIE AI analysis to look for any possible missing information or different perspectives. Academic historians would probably look at the document in its historical context. They may have questions such as, who created it, and what information might be missing. A digital media consumer might see the document and immediately believe the claim being made without actually looking into the context. Overall, I think the document can be useful evidence, but it also needs to be supported by other sources before using it to make a final claim about a current issue.

A document only qualifies as a credible primary source when it’s originally written from a first person prespective. bias or omission play a part in how they may not align with the original perspetive & may be used reinforce someone’s biases or opinions. In regards to how an academic historian might interpret the same evidence. They most likley would look back at the documents history & how it’s currently being used to persuade public opinion. Compared to a digital media consumer who would most likely rely on either the internet or AI for a straight answer.

In the Renaissance, the humanist ideal was the intellectual movement that focused on human potential , inquiry, worth, and agency. Modern day AI contradicts the entire ideal in multiple ways. They turn intellectual tasks into an artificial output which requires zero inquiry, zero thought , and zero effort. I also believe that AI can definitely help people learn, organize information, and come up with different ideas. Similar to now with using the Gobi learning platform. However, when someone allows anything but their mind to do most of the thinking or creating for them, they are not really developing their own abilities. The tool itself doesn’t define your potential. The only problem is if you become the pass of passenger letting technology drive you. The Father of Renaissance (Giotto) , shifted away from the Middle Ages into what we know today about the Renaissance period. He challenged medieval thinking with the purpose of art from abstract theological symbolism to human-centered realism . This new realism was a form of visual rhetoric, a functional power tool to convince merchants and rulers to adopt their ideas. The end result was morally autonomous individuals would be created, using observation and critical analysis to navigate public life. Before this movement, education was trapped in religious dogma leaving little room for real-world situations. Renaissance humanism pushed individuals to develop their own abilities, today, relying heavily on AI takes all of those abilities away. It becomes a major problem when people use it to think for them instead of using it to expand what they are already capable of doing.The argument relates to Erasmus's point. He criticized those who believe they have wisdom, but do not dare to question their own beliefs. AI connects because it gives every answer quick , but that doesn't necessarily mean the answers are always correct or that the person actually understood the information being presented. Human beings are unique, we do not contain a fixed pre-determined nature. That means limitless potential, and the creativity to do things how we see fit. These ideas are from Giovanni Mirandola. Before Mirandola, truth was something that people inherited instead of discovered. When we stop using our own judgment, it is like giving up that unique dignity and reverting back into the Middle Ages where the knowledge came from a system of books. What's the difference today where we blindly listen to AI systems without applying our own personal knowledge ? With the use of Gobie AI , I can dissect the discussion and gather that AI is not something that has to completely disappear. With understanding Renaissance principles and finding a way to integrate critical human thinking with artificial outputs, this will be the New Humanism. Therefore I can conclude that modern digital tools both align , and contradict simultaneously with the humanist ideal of the autonomous individual.

According to my knowledge, the classified document that is 50 years old can be considered as a primary source, since it comes from the period of research. However, as GOBIE has explained to me, the mere fact that it is a primary source does not mean at all that the information included in it is entirely trustworthy. It is necessary to find out why it was created, who was its author, what was its audience and possible bias or omissions. In particular, it might be the case that the government official who created the document was interested only in such facts and information that were relevant to his goal. In this way, there might be an omission of certain data in the document and even false facts. That is why I am going to look for any possible bias or omissions prior to drawing any conclusions regarding the classified document. This is why I am going to compare the information given in the classified document with other governmental sources and historical information. It relates to the lessons that have been gained about source criticism and contextualization in GOBIE. Not only should we study the contents of the source, but also its context. Whereas a fifty-year-old source might tell us much about the mind and intention of the government of that era, it definitely cannot answer any present-day queries. I think that an academic historian and a digital media consumer will interpret the same source quite differently. An academic historian will need some time to study the source, correlate it with other sources, find out the weaknesses of the source and the significance of the source. However, a digital media consumer will take the source at face value if it is either classified or declassified. Regarding its usefulness in understanding the era when the source is written, it is a good source for research, but I will not rely on this source alone to prove any present day policy. The GOBIE approach allowed me to understand the importance of not only the information given by the source but also the evaluation of this source, its purpose, and its bias and the context in which it was created. The GOBIE approach allowed me to understand the importance of asking not only “what” but also “how do I know?”.

I think the document could be useful as a primary source, but I would be careful about using it to make a claim about something happening today. It can show what the government knew or believed 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean it explains what is happening now. Just because it was classified doesn’t mean everything in it is automatically true. The Library of Congress explains that when using a primary source, it is important to look at who created it, why it was created, and the time period it came from. GOBIE also pointed out that we should look at the author’s purpose and what information or viewpoints might be missing. I would compare the document with other sources from that time to see if the information matches. I also wouldn’t automatically accept GOBIE’s analysis because it can be wrong too. I think an academic historian would look deeper into the document and compare it with other evidence, while a digital media consumer might see a headline about a classified document and assume it proves the claim. The National Archives explains that primary sources can have bias and limitations. To me, the document can be real but still be presented in a misleading way. That’s why the source, what is missing, and how it is being used today all matter. National Archives and Records Administration. (2016, August 15). History in the raw. https://www.archives.gov/education/research/history-in-the-raw.html

The Renaissance humanist ideal centered on the belief that human beings possess the ability to develop themselves through reason, judgment, and intellectual effort. Today, generative AI complicates that ideal because it can perform tasks that once required significant individual effort, including writing, brainstorming, research, and creative work. However, I do not think using AI automatically contradicts Renaissance humanism. Instead, generative AI can represent a form of “New Humanism” when it expands what individuals are capable of doing without replacing their judgment. The important distinction is not whether humans use intellectual tools, but whether they remain responsible for directing and evaluating the work those tools produce. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man provides a useful foundation for this argument. Pico presents human beings as unusually capable of shaping themselves rather than being confined to a predetermined nature. He describes humanity as having the freedom to determine its own development according to its “desires and judgement” (Pico). For Pico, human dignity comes partly from the ability to choose what kind of person one becomes. His argument suggests that human potential depends on actively exercising one's intellectual and personal freedom rather than simply accepting what is given. Erasmus offers another perspective that complicates the use of AI. In The Praise of Folly, he satirizes scholars who become so focused on displaying their knowledge that they lose sight of meaningful human understanding. His criticism is relevant to AI because generative tools can make it easier to produce something that appears intelligent without requiring the user to understand or evaluate it. Erasmus's work therefore suggests that possessing information is not the same as possessing wisdom. An AI-generated response may contain impressive language or information, but the individual still has to decide whether it is accurate, meaningful, or worth using. These ideas do not necessarily require humans to work without outside assistance. Renaissance humanists themselves relied on books, manuscripts, teachers, and the accumulated knowledge of earlier thinkers. What matters is how those tools are used. A person who uses generative AI to explore possibilities, organize complicated information, or develop an initial idea can still exercise individual judgment. The technology becomes an extension of the person's abilities rather than a replacement for them. GOBIE's response supports this interpretation of modern technology. It describes the modern world through the “interconnectedness of information” and the “speed of innovation,” arguing that technology can help bridge the gap between having an idea and carrying it out. Rather than presenting technology as something that should eliminate human creativity, GOBIE emphasizes the creative, strategic, and human elements that people can focus on when technology handles some of the more demanding tasks. This resembles a modern version of the humanist belief that tools and knowledge can help people develop their capabilities. At the same time, AI can contradict the humanist ideal when convenience replaces individual thought. If someone accepts an AI-generated argument without questioning it, submits writing they did not meaningfully develop, or allows an algorithm to make important intellectual decisions for them, the technology is no longer simply expanding human capability. The individual is giving up the judgment that Pico places at the center of human potential. It also creates the problem Erasmus exposes: a person can appear knowledgeable without actually engaging with the ideas being presented. In that situation, AI does not make the person more capable; it makes the person more dependent on something else to think on their behalf. This distinction is especially important because AI can produce convincing answers even when its information or reasoning is flawed. Human agency therefore requires more than simply prompting an AI system. The user must decide what questions to ask, evaluate the response, identify weaknesses, add their own perspective, and ultimately decide whether the result is worth accepting. In this sense, using AI responsibly can actually demand many of the same qualities Renaissance humanists valued: curiosity, reasoning, judgment, and active intellectual engagement. Generative AI should therefore be considered a potential form of “New Humanism,” but not because technology itself is inherently humanistic. Its value depends on whether it gives individuals greater freedom to create, investigate, and develop their abilities while leaving meaningful decisions in human hands. Pico's emphasis on human beings as shapers of themselves and Erasmus's criticism of empty displays of knowledge both point toward the same principle: intellectual tools are valuable when they serve human judgment rather than replace it. AI aligns with the humanist ideal when humans use it as a tool. It contradicts that ideal when humans allow the tool to become the thinker.

I believe a 50 year-old classified document can be a credible primary source, that should not be used by itself to support a current political claim. The document was created during the time being discussed, so it can provide valuable evidence about what people and government knew or believed at the time. However, it may also contain bias, missing information, or a limited point of view because it was classified and may have been written for a specific government purpose. I would compare the document with other primary sources, academic historians, and reliable tertiary sources before deciding what it proves. GOBIE's analysis also shows why it is important to question the source instead of automatically accepting it as fact. And academic historian would likely examine the document, author, purpose, context, and what information may have been left out. A social media consumer might see the document and immediately believe that proves the modern claim without researching its background. Overall, I think the document is useful evidence, but it needs to be supported by other sources. Just because a document is old or classified does not automatically make it accurate or unbiased. Evaluating the evidence and its context allows us to make a strong historical argument.

Hi, I am curious based on today's class what are your thoughts on biases and/or omissions? Do you think academic historian versus a digital media consumer might interpret the same evidence?