On 28/04/2020 13:00, Ian Goddard wrote:
> The forensic science half deals with two standards of proof: beyond
> reasonable doubt for criminal cases and balance of probabilities in
> civil cases. When I started out in family history I went on a course so
> naturally I asked the lecturer which of these applied. The question was
> never answered.
You're talking about English law here. Some jurisdictions have an
intermediate standard of proof. The United States is one, and it is
described as "clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence". I'm neither
a lawyer nor an American, and it may that the way this is interpreted in
US law is not what I would want in genealogy, but as a phrase it is
closer to what I'm aiming for as a genealogist than the two English
standards of proof. Of course it would be nice if everything were
"beyond reasonable doubt", but that's a difficult level to attain. Good
genealogy requires critical thinking, which results in lots of
reasonable doubts.
> In fact scientific method demands that I should look for material
> which has the potential to contradict the hypothesis.
I would say that a good genealogical method does too. For example, if I
know roughly where and when an individual was born, and I find a baptism
record in the appropriate parish and time window, I would not normally
consider that "clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence" until I've
checked to see whether there are any other suitable baptisms in a
neighbouring parish or just outside the expected time window, have
checked to see whether there are burials records or death registrations
which might be for that child, and have checked records such as censuses
and the parents given in baptisms in later decades to see if there was a
second individual with an equally good claim to the baptism. If some of
these records don't exist, which in earlier times is quite likely, I
don't necessarily let that stop me from accepting the record, but where
they exist and are readily accessible, I would want to check them first.
> The IT half of my career has led me to make little use of genealogical
> packages. ISTM that the lure of a recognised data structure, the tree,
> has inveigled developers into using this as the basis of their data
> store. As the family tree is a statement of an hypothesis, and one that
> might have to be replaced, using it as the framework on which to store
> the evidence requires too much prejudgement and might make changes of
> mind needlessly difficult. I prefer a mixure of RDBMS and spreadsheets
> as a means (not ideal but not enough to prod me into developing
> something better) for organising data into timelines.
I completely agree with this. It's long been an ambition of mine to
write a good genealogy application which treats evidence and your
analysis of it as the primary entities, and trees as views of that data
which can be generated in a variety of ways depending on what you want
to visualise. That might be the consequences of a hypothesis for which
there is little evidence, or even be something counterfactual, such as
what you understand another researcher to have believed but now know to
be false. It's a big project and not one I have time to get into
seriously at the moment, but I'd like to think it might happen, assuming
no-one else does something similar first.
Richard