Wes Groleau wrote: > On 08-14-2011 13:07, Ian Goddard wrote: >> As I keep saying, we're lumbered with a data model which makes no formal >> separation between data and conclusion and makes no formal provision for >> reasoning. And this is a natural consequence of that. > > No, it's a natural consequence of ignorance and/or laziness. > > It would be wonderful to have better tools, but the tools, > however bad they may be, do not control us. > You're right, of course but they're the two halves of the same problem. An inadequate toolset engenders ignorance and laziness, and ignorance and laziness fail to improve the tools, a situation which has persisted for nearly half a millennium. In medieval times a pedigree was the key to power, prestige and possessions. Such a situation would brook no indecisiveness. The pedigree had to look solid. The further back it went the better; a king was good, Adam and/or Wodin even better. So the factual, faked and fabulous (I'm having an alliterative three-part list day) would all be presented alike. The only tool a genealogist needed was a quill that drew lines of consistent thickness and couldn't write a question mark. In fact, if he wanted to earn a living it was the only tool allowed. The Tudors provided us with the potential for something better by instituting parish registers. And genealogists have been ignoring those registers in their presentations ever since. The consistent quill may have been re-implemented in terms of technology but it still presents fact, fake and fable with equal weight. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk