On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:07 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote: >In article <3psdr3tni8ulkd0b7bo06bufjvblm8uslh@4ax.com>, >Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >>Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >>>Bob has touched upon some classic philosophical issues. Perhaps by >>>exploring them a bit we can arrive at a better grasp of the significance >>>of data and their interpretation. >>> >>>The first thing that needs to be done is to be clear about the >>>difference between data and facts. >>>... >> >>I find nothing in your summary objectionable. But you omitted one >>concept I don't fully understand myself in its technical aspects, but >>still use metaphorically when thinking about data and facts. >> >>That concept is the one of "fuzzy" truth values (and thereby fuzzy >>logic). Very seldom can we assign perfect truth or perfect falsehood >>to an alleged fact, and sometimes we aren't all that sure what >>standard of truth we want to apply to a putative fact. >> >>Hugh has three possible ancestors to his earliest "proven" ancestor. >>He could, by whatever means he chose, assign a fuzzy truth value to >>each of them, thereby entertaining all three possibilities at once. >>If he ever gets further information, the truth values he assigns might >>change. > > Precisely. > > Or, as I mentioned more briefly elsewhere, I'd like to have some >software support for working with the method of multiple hypotheses. > > To back up a second, I view all of the genealogy and family history >I do as a matter of hypothesis building and testing. (My day job >is in science, surprise). My great grandmother Anna, I met, for >instance. Of course I only know that she's my great grandmother >because I was told so, even if by people (her daughter, for instance) >who should know. So maybe that's a pretty strong hypothesis. But, >her parents, ... well, that's weaker if not entirely vacant. One of >my great grandfathers, I have relatively good hypotheses about, but >his parents are where I have a dozen candidates at the moment. Very >low confidence w.r.t. any of them. Still, fair confidence that it's >one of the group. > > Your ideas for display methods sound good (and like something >I've thought about myself). > > One addition I'd make is that the boxes (mother's father's mother's >mother) are themselves certain -- there certainly was such a person. >Which person it is, not so obvious. But the slot itself is definite >even if we only have uncertain candidates with which to occupy it. >A different drawback to softwares is that they don't seem to permit >us to attach multiple candidates to the box. We may be quite certain >that they are only candidates for that particular box, while still >being quite uncertain as to which person is the proper occupant. > >-- >Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. >Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much >evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they >would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis Pronunciation: \hi-'pä-th?-s?s\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-?sez\ Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do Date: circa 1656 1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries since additional eveidence will probably never be available. If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. Hugh

In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: <snip on making hypotheses> > How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 > because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries > since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > > If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements > must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age marriage. Personally I think the much more reasonable method is to assume that all recorded statements are true and only assert them to be false when some contradictory evidence appears. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote: >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > ><snip on making hypotheses> > >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >> >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. > >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age >marriage. That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. I did that with my gg grand's birth year. Perhaps the difference is that it was not a hypothesis until someone tested. >Personally I think the much more reasonable method is to assume that all >recorded statements are true and only assert them to be false when some >contradictory evidence appears. I believe that is a restatement of what I said - and equally true. I also think recorded statements are probably more accurate than people statements in many cases. People often have ulterior motives for their statements. It's astounding how many ladies get pregnant on their honeymoon - or have premies. Hugh

In article <47bb2541.21325314@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:07 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) >wrote: > >>In article <3psdr3tni8ulkd0b7bo06bufjvblm8uslh@4ax.com>, >>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: [minitrim] >>>I find nothing in your summary objectionable. But you omitted one >>>concept I don't fully understand myself in its technical aspects, but >>>still use metaphorically when thinking about data and facts. >>> >>>That concept is the one of "fuzzy" truth values (and thereby fuzzy >>>logic). Very seldom can we assign perfect truth or perfect falsehood >>>to an alleged fact, and sometimes we aren't all that sure what >>>standard of truth we want to apply to a putative fact. >>> >>>Hugh has three possible ancestors to his earliest "proven" ancestor. >>>He could, by whatever means he chose, assign a fuzzy truth value to >>>each of them, thereby entertaining all three possibilities at once. >>>If he ever gets further information, the truth values he assigns might >>>change. >> >> Precisely. >> >> Or, as I mentioned more briefly elsewhere, I'd like to have some >>software support for working with the method of multiple hypotheses. >> >> To back up a second, I view all of the genealogy and family history >>I do as a matter of hypothesis building and testing. (My day job >>is in science, surprise). My great grandmother Anna, I met, for >>instance. Of course I only know that she's my great grandmother >>because I was told so, even if by people (her daughter, for instance) >>who should know. So maybe that's a pretty strong hypothesis. But, >>her parents, ... well, that's weaker if not entirely vacant. One of >>my great grandfathers, I have relatively good hypotheses about, but >>his parents are where I have a dozen candidates at the moment. Very >>low confidence w.r.t. any of them. Still, fair confidence that it's >>one of the group. >> >> Your ideas for display methods sound good (and like something >>I've thought about myself). >> >> One addition I'd make is that the boxes (mother's father's mother's >>mother) are themselves certain -- there certainly was such a person. >>Which person it is, not so obvious. But the slot itself is definite >>even if we only have uncertain candidates with which to occupy it. >>A different drawback to softwares is that they don't seem to permit >>us to attach multiple candidates to the box. We may be quite certain >>that they are only candidates for that particular box, while still >>being quite uncertain as to which person is the proper occupant. >> >Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis >Pronunciation: \hi-'pä-th?-s?s\ >Function: noun >Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-?sez\ >Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- >+ tithenai to put — more at do >Date: circa 1656 >1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an >interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the >ground for action >2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its >logical or empirical consequences >3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement > >How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > >If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. 'an interpretation of a practical situation taken as the ground for action'. I may take some sole record as a ground for action, say entry to my dataset. But that is a pragmatic decision. The only 'fact' is that some piece of paper (internet record, ...) says something. As it may be a step up from total ignorance, I'll entertain the hypothesis that the record is correct. But whether it is correct is something to be tested. 'a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences'. I entertain, currently, the hypothesis that Edmund Sampson is an ancestor of mine, by way of a particular route. As his daughter is (hypothetically) born in the US in 1880, he should not appear in the English census of 1881. On the other hand, as he was born in Cornwall, he _should_ appear in the census of 1871 and 1861, perhaps 1851. So, as I look at the census records, I test these hypotheses, looking for Edmund Sampsons in the 1871 census (there are more than one) who are not apparently in the 1881 census (there seemed only to be 1 or 2). Not proof that he's my guy, and if I had a birth certificate, I still wouldn't know, since it's a long way from Cornwall to the states, the right guy could have been born somewhere other than Cornwall (including the US). Still, insofar as the family legends can be trusted, I have a stronger hypothesis for who it is. As I don't trust one of the sources for this much, it isn't a terribly strong hypothesis. Either way, the more ways a hypothesis can be tested, the more confidence I can have in it. If it's impossible to test, then there can't be much confidence. That's why the line between me and Charlemagne is a point of amusement, not serious. Even if I were to document well (as these things go) the line between me and the 'gateway ancestor', there are still another 900 years between her and grandpa Chuck. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences