Struggling Over Evidentiary Answers

I've finally had time to take a look at my (Board for Certification of Genealogists) BCG Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. 

Like many genealogists, I struggle with definitions. Perhaps I am overly burdened by my background and one too many semesters of teaching the basics of mathematical logic and set theory.

We'll try and make some of that struggle here--publicly. The theory is that if I'm struggling then at least one other person probably is too.

On page 67, of  Genealogy Standards "evidence" is defined partially as "...a research question's answer..."

I may be confused, but I was under the impression that evidence was the information we chose to use from sources in the construction of a genealogical proof. I didn't think that the evidence was the answer.

It may be splitting hairs, but I don't think evidence is the "answer" by itself. There's more to reaching a conclusion that simply compiling evidence. Evidence is the various information we use in the construction of a proof to arrive at an answer. Evidence may be direct, indirect, or negative and any one piece of evidence may not provide the answer (in most challenging and interesting problems it does not). In the case of indirect and negative evidence, one piece of "evidence" does not usually explicitly state anything--most specifically not what we are trying to "prove." With indirect evidence an analysis including additional unstated information must be included to reach the "indirect statement" and with negative evidence an analysis including what's "negative" must be included with the negative evidence. Direct evidence does state something specifically, but even direct evidence may not completely state that which we are trying to prove.

I may be debating the number of angels on the head of a pin, but thinking about terms, definitions, and genealogical proof is not necessarily a bad thing.

And onward it goes.

Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition

I've finally gotten around to ordering Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, the manual printed by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. It has a release date of tomorrow.

As regular readers know, I'm working on BCG certification. My original copy of the Standards manual is pretty well-worn. I tend to make notations and comments in paper versions of things, both things I want to remember and things I originally don't understand. The new edition won't be any different. I tend to view books of this types as "learning texts" to be used in a way that increases my understanding.

When my copy of  Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition arrives, we'll be making comments about various parts of it. I've found reading it over helpful in my certification work. Any comments made will be my opinions and may not necessarily agree with the BCG viewpoint.

And even if you're not considering certification, thinking about how you research and how you can improve your research is never a bad thing. Even if you think you'll never take genealogy "that seriously," learning about methods can only help you research.

And isn't that we all want?

Note: We'll have the comments feature turned on whenever the Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition is discussed. Get your own copy and feel free to take part in the discussion--or just read along.

Certification Responses and Comments

Quite a few readers emailed me privately in response to my post about starting my portfolio for BCG certification, so I've decided to occasionally mention various aspects of that process as there is apparently more interest in it that I thought. So from time to time, I'll mention various aspects of my portfolio preparation, but I won't bore readers with too much minutia.

The certification process is heavy on writing, which as regular readers know is one of my favorite analytical tools. Finding a family that I've not used too much in my own writing and blogging is difficult. I've written about many of my families regularly for Casefile Clues and other publications so there's no family that's "fresh," but I think I have found a good one to use.

I have received my document to transcribe, but so far it is sitting on my desk. I'm already a month into the process and it's time to get cracking.