J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard > <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >>> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I >>> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority >>> on the subject. >> It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly >> wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any >> other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds >> are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from >> not very long ago would have excluded DNA. >> -- >> Ian > > I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality > and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the > standards. A competent group will always be on top of change. > > I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another > source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even > attempt to list all the tools that can be used. But this subthread (and, BTW, congratulations on engineering an extremely interesting thread out of an uninspiring initial OT commercial post) rose from your being somewhat narrowly prescriptive about what is or isn't genealogy. I simply point out that a narrow prescriptive definition of genealogy 10 or 15 years ago would have confined it to the discovery and interpretation of records, mostly BMD and census with a few other documents such as wills and MIs thrown in because that would have been the raw material at the time. DNA would have been not so much excluded as not included. > > A male and a female procreate. The offspring and their descendants are > the basis of what many people call genealogy. If the momma isn't sure > who the daddy was it doesn't change the genealogy - ir might change > the names of record. > > I think genealogy that does not include events is too skimpy to > consider. Those events are the family history of the genealogy. > > I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most > refognizeable terms to mose people. They may lose something in > translation if you are not an American from the USA. > Fair enough. As to standards ISTM that everyone contributing to this thread has come from a background which has endowed them with the ability to apply a degree of rigour to their thinking and I doubt they're in need of help from a self-selected set of authorities. In fact the sum of their contributions seems to me as likely to be of value to anyone wanting to understand how to evaluate evidence as any prescriptive standard. To throw in my own two penn'orth I'd like to point out that circumstances can affect standards of proof. As one example, at least in the court system with which I'm familiar there are two legal standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities, depending on the type of case. One size does not fit all. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:01:08 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard >> <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >>>> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I >>>> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority >>>> on the subject. >>> It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly >>> wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any >>> other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds >>> are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from >>> not very long ago would have excluded DNA. >>> -- >>> Ian >> >> I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality >> and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the >> standards. A competent group will always be on top of change. >> >> I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another >> source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even >> attempt to list all the tools that can be used. > >But this subthread (and, BTW, congratulations on engineering an >extremely interesting thread out of an uninspiring initial OT commercial >post) rose from your being somewhat narrowly prescriptive about what is >or isn't genealogy. I was too specific and needed to put it in reverse nomenclature gear. >I simply point out that a narrow prescriptive >definition of genealogy 10 or 15 years ago would have confined it to the >discovery and interpretation of records, mostly BMD and census with a >few other documents such as wills and MIs thrown in because that would >have been the raw material at the time. DNA would have been not so much >excluded as not included. I agree with "not included". >> I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most >> recognizeable terms to most people. They may lose something in >> translation if you are not an American from the USA. >> > >Fair enough. > >As to standards ISTM that everyone contributing to this thread has come >from a background which has endowed them with the ability to apply a >degree of rigour to their thinking and I doubt they're in need of help >from a self-selected set of authorities. In fact the sum of their >contributions seems to me as likely to be of value to anyone wanting to >understand how to evaluate evidence as any prescriptive standard. But there are probably more readers than contributors since the thread got a bit confrontational. The benefit to several will be the discussion of various ideas and they can choose. Each of the wise among us will have taken something from the thread. >To throw in my own two penn'orth I'd like to point out that >circumstances can affect standards of proof. As one example, at least >in the court system with which I'm familiar there are two legal >standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt and balance of >probabilities, depending on the type of case. One size does not fit all. What we don't know, that we don't know, will always be a problem. I can prove my ancestors "beyond a reasonable doubt" back to Adam and Eve using the Bible and Irish Mythology - published and respected works. But the links from my gg grandfather to my probable ggggg grandfather is theory that can't be disproved. My problem is that I have no proof other than no disproof. I understand that those who have disagreed with my methods here would quickly adopt my theory as gospel if they were of the line. I'm not ready to submit to mediocrity so quickly. But I have no problem if they do. DNA will make fools of a lot of us. Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: snip > I can prove my ancestors "beyond a reasonable doubt" back to Adam and > Eve using the Bible and Irish Mythology - published and respected > works. But the links from my gg grandfather to my probable ggggg > grandfather is theory that can't be disproved. My problem is that I > have no proof other than no disproof. > > I understand that those who have disagreed with my methods here would > quickly adopt my theory as gospel if they were of the line. I'm not > ready to submit to mediocrity so quickly. But I have no problem if > they do. > > DNA will make fools of a lot of us. if born a fool . . . welcome to the 'bin Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG