I think that acceptability of genealogical evidence is purely a question of whom one must satisfy with the presentation. The standards of Jamestown Society, DAR and SAR are VERY high, while proof sufficient in the eyes of SUV or SCV is considerably less stringent. As to the reasoning - deductive, inductive or whatever - that is used to determine what is adequate evidence and what is not sufficient is quite another matter. I know of no organization that looks beyond what facts are presented in view of what those people find adequate. It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones between "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of what is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" to "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. I hope I have contributed something to your question, however I am not atall convinced that I have done much more than babble. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Grace Upshaw To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE Hi Paul: Speaking of genealogical evidence is deductive reasoning acceptable as evidence? Example: George Somers gives land to his son, James. John Somers names his brother, James Somers, as executor of his will. Therefore George Somers is the father of John Somers. Is this example acceptable as proof of John's parentage?.Also, George had a grandson named John Landman ( from a deed from George), which means his daughter was the mother of the gr.son. Her name was Sythia Blake Landman. There was a John Somers whose wife was named Sythia Blake...now is that proof that George was the son of Sythia Blake and her husband John Somers? This from my family. Others have told me I need more tangible proof.But it just doesn't exist. I hope my reasoning is sufficient. Paul Drake wrote: >I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his >statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. > >Then too you have made my point with his very words: >"but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in >terms of evidence rather than sources." > >What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact as >having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and >weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, >untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all who >are interested in that particular group of facts. > >I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the centuries >have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have succeeded >in doing so in a couple of sentences. > >Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is >hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value to a >genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, None. >!! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many angels >could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? > > > >============================== >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > > > > ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005

To Whom it may Concern When I joined the SCV in 1983, I only mailed in a page that had my ancestor's service in the 15th Alabama, I did not have to provide birth certificate, marriage records for my parents, death certificates for my grandparents, and census records showing head of household the enumeration of children, and Confederate Service records that are required now. I have recruited at least five people for the Military Order of the Stars & Bars. They had to provide birth certificates for themselves, and their parents, their parents marriage records, also the marriage records or death certificates for their grandparents documents going back to their Confederate ancestor. A person, even had to provide his ancestor's parole paper in 1865. One person had to go back more than three generations. So things have changed you have to prove to them you are who you say you are. Le ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Drake" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE I think that acceptability of genealogical evidence is purely a question of whom one must satisfy with the presentation. The standards of Jamestown Society, DAR and SAR are VERY high, while proof sufficient in the eyes of SUV or SCV is considerably less stringent. As to the reasoning - deductive, inductive or whatever - that is used to determine what is adequate evidence and what is not sufficient is quite another matter. I know of no organization that looks beyond what facts are presented in view of what those people find adequate. It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones between "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of what is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" to "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. I hope I have contributed something to your question, however I am not atall convinced that I have done much more than babble. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Grace Upshaw To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE Hi Paul: Speaking of genealogical evidence is deductive reasoning acceptable as evidence? Example: George Somers gives land to his son, James. John Somers names his brother, James Somers, as executor of his will. Therefore George Somers is the father of John Somers. Is this example acceptable as proof of John's parentage?.Also, George had a grandson named John Landman ( from a deed from George), which means his daughter was the mother of the gr.son. Her name was Sythia Blake Landman. There was a John Somers whose wife was named Sythia Blake...now is that proof that George was the son of Sythia Blake and her husband John Somers? This from my family. Others have told me I need more tangible proof.But it just doesn't exist. I hope my reasoning is sufficient. Paul Drake wrote: >I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his >statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. > >Then too you have made my point with his very words: >"but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in >terms of evidence rather than sources." > >What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact as >having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and >weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, >untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all who >are interested in that particular group of facts. > >I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the centuries >have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have succeeded >in doing so in a couple of sentences. > >Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is >hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value to a >genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, None. >!! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many angels >could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? > > > >============================== >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > > > > ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005 ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429

>>>It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones between "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of what is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" to "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. <<<< Paul and all, I agree with what you are saying, but a couple of additions. First, let me say that I do not hold any genealogical certifications, but hope to some day, and try to do credible research now. I should say, that I didn't get the original "forward" from VA-Southside, and this may have already been covered, If so, please excuse the repetition. My research today shows: Even though the term may still be used, and abused by various "judges," "Preponderance of evidence" is no longer the accepted standard by, at least, the National Genealogical Society, nor by any society with which I am familiar. Of course, that leaves a bunch I am not familiar with <G>. The current standards are, in a few words: As quoted from http://genealogy.about.com/cs/citing/a/proof.htm which is quoting from: the "BCG [Board for Certification of Genealogists] Genealogical Standards Manual" "The Genealogical Proof Standard consists of five elements: A reasonably exhaustive search for all pertinent information A complete and accurate citation to the source of each item used Analysis of the collected information's quality as evidence Resolution of any conflicting or contradictory evidence Arrive at a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion A genealogical conclusion that meets these standards can be considered proved. It may still not be 100% accurate, but it is as close to accurate as we can attain given the information and sources available to us." Now, the soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion should, in my view, include not only the "end" but the "journey" -- it would help others know what your reasoning is. Not that they have to agree, but at least they have a place to "jump" from. Further, what "clues, evidence, or information"? from the National Genealogical Society: "Genealogical Standards & Guidelines Standards For Sound Genealogical Research Recommended by the National Genealogical Society Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently- record the source for each item of information they collect. test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence. seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions. use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them. state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others. limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible. avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information. state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work. recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment. consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached. C 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice." Now, in my view, the critical items there are "reasonably exhaustive search" and the setting up of an hypothesis and testing the evidence, coupled with a coherent explanation, using the appropriate terminology. Where I see huge errors in genealogies, published in books, or on the internet now, is that sometimes the researcher has apparently stopped at the first "John Jones" who even vaguely meets the criteria (clue: family tradition says John left Kentucky and moved to Missouri with his wife Mary). The fact that there were 40 "John Jones" who had wives "Mary" in the 1850 Missouri census, who were born in Kentucky, escapes notice. So, always ask, "could there be another explanation for . . . " and do the research. And, instead of saying "John and Mary Jones moved to Jackson County, Missouri" you might say, "Based on the ages, names of children, and other families on nearby farms, the John and Mary Jones living in Jackson County, Missouri, are likely (probably) the family that moved from Kentucky in 1845. No other Jones family in Missouri on the census had a son "Philbert", a common name for this Jones family." (Oh, and that's an easy one, you could have one with all the cousins named the same thing. <G>) FURTHER, all evidence/clues should be kept, (i.e., identify your sources and why you did/did not use the evidence "as is"), and maybe shared, by the researcher. Otherwise, your conclusions just become, in fifty years, another of the infamous "family traditions" right up there with the "Aunt Mabel said". . . "three brothers who left _______ for America in _____ to escape the ________. (Didn't four or two brothers ever leave? And what about the sisters?......hmmm, now there's a clue <G>) Now, my confession is that I have done and occasionally do, some piece of research, say a census search, and, in my head, do the above testing. But, having found the person who meets the total criteria, I cite the source, and move on without noting the other "candidates" and why they were not acceptable. Big problem with this is that in six months, (or in two days, sometimes) something else comes up and I have to go back and "prove" it all over again. Big waste of time, and if I have published it in the interim, the potential of a big embarrassment, if I don't have all my ducks in a row. All in all, semantics aside -- isn't this a great way to spend a day, week, . . . .lifetime? Regards, Pat (in Tucson) Nosco vestri atavi est ingredior intellego vestri ego (To become acquainted with your ancestors is to begin to comprehend your self)