tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post3078897305082754951..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: The Ins and Outs of Evidence for Genealogists -- Part Eight: ConclusionsJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-47880149314146057352015-02-11T11:57:05.179-07:002015-02-11T11:57:05.179-07:00"I believe that John is my grandfather" ..."I believe that John is my grandfather" is problematic on the face of it. But that is because I object to the use of "believe" when the correct word is "think."IsraelPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16748957039859625149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-13749718230680003082015-02-09T14:01:40.778-07:002015-02-09T14:01:40.778-07:00Very good observations. Thanks for reading the ser...Very good observations. Thanks for reading the series. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-14134645724696535102015-02-09T13:54:55.302-07:002015-02-09T13:54:55.302-07:00Thank you for this interesting and thought-provoki...Thank you for this interesting and thought-provoking series. I don't have any problem with the use of the word "evidence" but like you I do think the use of the word "proof", especially as it is used in US genealogical circles, is problematic. The word proof is used not just in the law but in science and in common parlance. Proof implies a high degree of certainty, but proof is generally elusive. I think it only confuses people to use the word proof in something like the Genealogical Proof Standard which essentially describes a methodology and not a means of proving or disproving a fact. It would be more appropriate to call it the Genealogical Research Standard. I'm also puzzled by the requirement in the GPS to write a "soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion". If we were to do this for every single link in our family trees we wouldn't get very far with our research, and I really don't see why writing a lengthy conclusion makes any difference to the quality of the research. Somebody can write a long essay and still come to the wrong conclusion. There is no need whatsoever to write "I have examined several sources and believe that John is my grandfather" or indeed any of the longer versions that you cite. For the average family historian entering a fact into a family history program with links to the sources cited is all that is required, perhaps with a few explanatory notes where further clarification is needed. Following a consistent methodology is no guarantee that someone will produce high-quality research. Reproducibility is the only true test of your research. Can someone else who is researching the same family tree as you locate the sources you have used and perhaps supplement them with other sources and come to the same conclusion as you? Often it is better to approach a research problem from a new perspective.<br />Debbie Kennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11573470282571579765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37667603999046429102015-02-09T08:21:16.436-07:002015-02-09T08:21:16.436-07:00I said it was a glimmer of a hope. :-)I said it was a glimmer of a hope. :-)James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-52679918309477056522015-02-09T08:15:32.804-07:002015-02-09T08:15:32.804-07:00Amy, the documentation available for the Jefferson...Amy, the documentation available for the Jefferson plantation and for the Hemings' was quite extensive and detailed.<br /><br />It would be quite unusual for there to be documentation that would shed light on the circumstance(s) I posed in the case of the Y-DNA matches, particularly if estate or land records reflected the belief of John Doe that he was the father of his wife's sons.<br /><br />Y-DNA testing was not available for the Jefferson-Hemings group.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-45227719528323874782015-02-09T07:28:51.040-07:002015-02-09T07:28:51.040-07:00Geo, by "final example" I meant the exam...Geo, by "final example" I meant the example James chose for the final post in the series, nothing more.<br /><br />Probably the best example of what you're talking about is, of course, the Jefferson-Hemings family. In that case the DNA evidence alone couldn’t prove Jefferson’s paternity, but the documentary trail for the Jefferson family could, since the records are extensive enough to prove which possible father had access to the mother before the birth of each child.Amy Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04037263182287268748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-81039935263562097272015-02-09T04:04:41.110-07:002015-02-09T04:04:41.110-07:00James, you wrote, "Trying to stem the tide of...James, you wrote, "Trying to stem the tide of the use of a common term is virtually impossible. I do see a glimmer of hope when a widely accepted and authoritative new book comes out and decries their usage. See Anderson, Robert Charles. Elements of Genealogical Analysis. 2014."<br /><br />One could be more specific about what Anderson actually wrote. In Appendix B he did criticize genealogical use of the term "preponderance of the evidence," but uses the term "evidence" throughout the book and at the end of Appendix B where he gives a very general description of his approach.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-25118369626734035052015-02-08T21:38:11.390-07:002015-02-08T21:38:11.390-07:00You point out exactly why DNA when used with genea...You point out exactly why DNA when used with genealogy requires independent research on the lines. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-74802459293339411062015-02-08T18:53:14.432-07:002015-02-08T18:53:14.432-07:00Amy, you say, "Paternity is an interesting fi...Amy, you say, "Paternity is an interesting final example. Given the realities of human life, conclusive proof of that fact would need to include DNA evidence. Before DNA evidence, establishing paternity has always been something of an art form."<br /><br />The notion of 'final example' is really quite subject to iffy interpretation. Say John Doe believes that he sired several sons and Y-DNA testing of descendants of each son results in a high degree of matching. Such results do not exclude paternity by John Doe's actual father, by a paternal uncle, by a first or second cousin, or of all of the sons by a neighborhood philanderer. Common male ancestor, very probably; but *who* is not proven by such results.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-59465103760600522382015-02-08T14:41:33.301-07:002015-02-08T14:41:33.301-07:00I recently came across a source stated to be an au...I recently came across a source stated to be an autobiography, but when I started to examine the information mentioned in the document, things got really strange really fast.<br /><br />I puzzled and puzzled over the discrepancies and described the whole situation and difficulties to one of my teenagers on a long car ride, and while discussing it with him, I finally realized the "autobiography" wasn't. The only explanation for the discrepancies was that it was written by someone else decades after the supposed author's death.<br /><br />So, yes, we need a consistent methodology, gathering personal and community histories, for example; but as you say we also need to use critical analysis of the sources and not take them at face value.Amy Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04037263182287268748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-41792289670290821322015-02-08T14:31:24.574-07:002015-02-08T14:31:24.574-07:00Paternity is an interesting final example. Given t...Paternity is an interesting final example. Given the realities of human life, conclusive proof of that fact would need to include DNA evidence. Before DNA evidence, establishing paternity has always been something of an art form. <br /><br />I’m thinking of the recent DNA test for Richard III. Given the DNA and location of the skeleton and physical proof, statisticians estimated that the chance that it wasn’t Richard III was 6.7 million to 1.<br /><br />With odds like those, can we state beyond reasonable doubt that it is Richard III? Probably. When the rest of us do genealogy are we working with those kind of odds? Unlikely.<br /><br />Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the series. Thanks!Amy Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04037263182287268748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-11815882179129331042015-02-08T13:56:02.729-07:002015-02-08T13:56:02.729-07:00"If we follow a consistent methodology we wil..."If we follow a consistent methodology we will produce reliable results" - sorry, I don't buy this. All we will produce from a consistent methodology is a set of *consistent* results. Whether or not those results are reliable is another matter. <br /><br />For me the issues major on things like inappropriate use of "same name, must be same person"; lack of critical analysis of sources; giving up and assuming something must be true because examining it further is too much like hard work, etc. <br /><br />Whether or not we use words like "proof", "evidence", etc, doesn't seem to matter to me if the fundamentals are wrong. Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.com