Darrell, I like your rules. They make sense. Genealogy is a special form of history - family history. And good research in history requires good research techniques, foremost among them keeping good and copious notes and identifying all original sources. But, unlike economic history or history of science, or cultural history, family history research is mostly done by hobbyists in their leisure time. Also, their audience tends to be their immediate family, who don't insist on very high burdens of proof. If a specific connection has been "proven" or "disproven" in a respected genealogical journal, I will tend to take that at face value - unless I have been researching the same connection and have discovered new evidence that would call the author's conclusions into question. About 50 years ago my grandmother wanted to be a member of the DAR. She had to prove her line. She had amassed a lot of material from family bibles and recollections of her aunts and uncles. She was sure that she had 3 ancestors who fought in the Revolution. But the DAR never accepted her proof. She was mortified and never had a good thing to say about the DAR thereafter. She passed on her research material to me when I was about 12. When I first took an interest in really going through it, I began to wonder about her "proof". I decided that the DAR was right - though I never told her that. My point is that in this case the DAR was acting as a validator - setting a threshold of proof that my grandmother couldn't meet. And my family generalogy is actually better for it. Now we face Internet communication speeds and software that allows the sharing of hundreds or thousands of individuals from amateur genealogist to amateur genealogist. That has great promise but it also has great risks. Questionable information can move at the speed of light just as valid information can. We need high standards if our collective work is not to degenerate to suppositions and desires and guesses as my granmother's work did at times. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Darrell A. Martin <darrellm@sprynet.com> To: DUTTON-L@rootsweb.com <DUTTON-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 9:07 PM Subject: Re: burden of proof >At 01:46 PM 01/20/1999 -0800, Walter Lundstein (novelist@adnc.com) wrote: >>Darrell, et al: >> >>As a novice genealogist, I am discovering many interesting things. One has >been >>the "burden of proof" requisite to making an assertion of fact within the >context >>of genealogy. I have practiced law for many years and the burden of proof is >>different for many cases. > >[snip] > >Walter, and the list: > >Ah, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I am about to rush in by >using legal terminology when to do so is to risk being shown, if not a >fool, at least rash. I am a computer programmer by trade, with a degree in >Psychology. > >In genealogy, as in court, there are indeed different standards of proof >depending on the circumstances. The burden may be light or heavy, depending >on whether on is trying to convince a reputable journal publisher (such as >for TAG or NEHGR), or one's second cousin who collects dead relatives like >some people collect pennies. Descendant societies are all over the place. >The following "rules" are my opinion, based on the notion that I want the >work I do to be of some value to nearly any future researcher that might >use it. > >Rule One: There is no exclusionary rule. No tree is poison, but many bear >no fruit. It does not matter how one was prompted to look for a particular >document; if the evidence is there, use it. > >Rule Two: Hearsay may be useful, but should be identified as such. This is >the "primary source" rule. An original document bears more weight than >something which quotes it. Yes, birth certificates may be mistaken, but >they are a lot less likely to be in error than the "family story" that has >been passed through at least three generations. > >Rule Three: Find eyewitnesses if possible. This is the "contemporary >source" rule. The further from the date of the event that the record was >created, the less likely to be accurate. It is similar to, but not quite >the same as, Rule Two. > >Rule Four: A record of proceedings should be kept to allow for appeals. >This is the "cite your sources" rule. I have a pedigree in my possession, >made up by a person who had a very good reputation for careful research in >the 1970s, but which supplies no documentation of any kind. It makes >assertions which seem reasonable, and if true would be the equivalent of an >on-the-stand confession of murder from someone who wasn't even a suspect. >The writer is now deceased, and his working papers are no longer with us. >Rule One applies, and I use the pedigree as a clue; but I just don't know >where to look. . . . > >Rule Five: Circumstantial evidence is valuable but must be handled >carefully. The most common violation of this rule in genealogy is the >"name's the same" error. Ask any person on this list about how many "Thomas >Dutton's" they have come across, often in the same town. Be prepared for a >sigh, a groan, maybe even a shriek! > >Rule Six: Evaluate both materiality and relevance. If someone uses a >document to prove a main point, and in the process happens to "mention" >that the document relates to something away from that main point, do not >hold the author to more than she or he actually said. More important, do >not hold the *source* to more than it actually says! > >Rule Seven: "Stare decisis" (the decision stands) should be considered less >solid in genealogy than a feather in a tornado. The problem is that there >is so much JUNK out there, from the deliberate falsification, to the >mistranscription, to the fatuous, to the careless, that only a careful >review of the cited sources (presuming there are any) and a walk through >the author's reasoning can lend credence to the statements made. (This >predates the Internet by millenia, by the way. Kings whose fathers weren't >royalty have always been prone to, er, exaggeration of their predecessors' >worth.<grin>) After a while, one learns that certain writers can be trusted >more than others; but that does not relieve one of the burden of proof >otherwise applying. > >All this is just my opinion, but it IS my opinion! Comments requested. >Arguments welcome, but will all be refuted by my razor-sharp wit. <big grin> > >Darrell > >formerly of the Dutton District >in Springfield, Vermont >currently in exile in Addison, Illinois > darrellm@sprynet.com > >