tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post4881339001750674072..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: The Ins and Outs of Evidence for Genealogists -- Part OneJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-35918419539937927712015-01-07T18:22:17.886-07:002015-01-07T18:22:17.886-07:00Yes, I can both stand it and LOVE IT!Yes, I can both stand it and LOVE IT!GeneRooterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01395050318275893131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-83265876335947974942015-01-07T07:36:00.131-07:002015-01-07T07:36:00.131-07:00Interesting point. I might need to address this as...Interesting point. I might need to address this aspect of evidence in future posts. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I do see some immediate differences however. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-11310643040055277932015-01-07T02:03:53.326-07:002015-01-07T02:03:53.326-07:00I think our ancestral genealogists did liken thems...I think our ancestral genealogists did liken themselves to lawyers, opening and shutting the case based on the evidence at the time (at least, if you read the ancestral books about my family! Maybe not in others...). <br /><br />What it sounds like to me from your post is that genealogists have less in common with lawyers and more in common with police. Our cases are not finite - they can always be reopened should new evidence emerge, just like a case for a police officer. And police officers are making a case to submit to others - usually lawyers but sometimes not - and so they often have to convince people that their case is right even if its not 100% evidentially correct. And police officers often have to wade through conflicting evidence to figure out how to make their case and get it to the District Attorney for trial. <br /><br />As a detective, I am trying my best to make my case with the evidence available, even if the evidence only make sense to me. If I choose to prepare it in a way for others to understand it (say, by doing a proof statement) then all I am doing is documenting my process so that other detectives down the road can choose to either find my case correct OR ignore it. My work is my work - their decision to find my case correct or not does not affect my work. <br /><br />You could also make the metaphor work that we are more like scientists as well, testing and proving our hypotheses over and over in an effort to convince others that our method is more sound than others. <br /><br />A lot of food for thought, James. Thanks! This may feed some ideas for future columns on my own blog.<br />Crafting in Yoohoovillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223824425648008880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-48415373404837416222015-01-04T11:44:04.412-07:002015-01-04T11:44:04.412-07:00Good comment. When genealogists talk about proof i...Good comment. When genealogists talk about proof in the context of burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence, they are not using the word evidence in a general sense. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-66046570470312987922015-01-04T11:29:20.937-07:002015-01-04T11:29:20.937-07:00Does evidence derive from legal use or was it use ...Does evidence derive from legal use or was it use before the legal profession started using it in the 15th century?<br />Surely it was in use long before that for example in the 13th century it meant, something from which inference may be taken.<br /><br />I would suggest the legal profession borrowed the word and change its meaning for their own use. If that is the case then the genealogical use of the term is just as correct as the legal adaptation of the term. <br />Context is always important to meaning.<br />I would suggest that a number of words you believe to have stemmed from their legal usage were in fact in use long before lawyers were around to use them.<br />Cheers<br />GuyGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661609230878792638noreply@blogger.com