[APG Public List] Fw: Genealogical Proof Standard (Was The reliabilityof federal census records for genealogi...)

Jeanette Daniels jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 4 08:51:05 MST 2009





----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
To: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 8:50:16 AM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Genealogical Proof Standard (Was The reliabilityof federal census records for genealogi...)


Larry,

I have to agree with that.  As genealogists, we should never "force something to be right."  This is done often in courts of law but that doesn't make something right just because someone is skilled in persuasion or manipulating evidence to look a certain way, while concealing other evidence.  That can't happen in genealogy.  If you are constantly trying to determine how an individual source measures up to the GPS, you have missed the point of what research is (generally the use of multiple sources to come to conclusions) and what it proves.

I notice that several of the newer genealogists on the member, public, or transitional lists are struggling to figure out how to use the GPS or stuck on how to cite something.  They need to look at the broader picture of research.  To me the bigger issues that should be discussed would be more regarding research modalities or finding out if there are more sources available for a particular situation.  After all, we are genealogical researchers.  Honing what constitutes research will take away the wondering regarding if something is matching the GPS.  

I look forward to the new "Theorygen" list.  Thank you for giving all of us another avenue for genealogical exploration.

Jeanette




________________________________
From: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
To: eshown at comcast.net; APGpubliclist at apgen.org
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 8:16:53 AM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Genealogical Proof Standard (Was The reliabilityof federal census records for genealogi...)


The research approach represented by those five steps is an excellent one (if a bit of tinkering with wording was done).
 
As a guide to research, I've no problem with the concepts behind the gps (except for above issue).
 
My thought is that amounts to genealogicaly heresay, because I argue that  a "proof standard" isn't necessary, that it can't offer any proven benefit justifying it's continued use, and may in fact accomplish the opposite of what is intended.  If it becomes the focus instead of the research at hand (meeting the gps), for example.  There cannot be an objectively applied standard in this manner.
 
but I just mention this in passing. I don't think this is the right list to do it on. I'm house-cleaning the TheoryGen list, sweeping everything out, maybe might be a good positive subject for that list.  For anyone willing to discuss it in a positive, respectful way...

Larry 
 Elizabeth's:
>"...the GPS is a five-step process. The utilization of a range of records is just the first step in that process. The questions on which Jay has quoted or paraphrased you, above, are the type of questions you should be asking about each statement in each record you use, of whatever type. 
> 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: ../attachments/20091104/3643ba0e/attachment.htm


More information about the APGPublicList mailing list