For newbie and experienced
researchers alike who thrash away doing our best to produce quality
family history, it’s a good thing we have Thomas W. Jones and his
ilk. Jones’ latest publication is called Mastering
Genealogical Proof.[1]
It's a welcome
addition to genealogical studies, available from the National Genealogical Society’s (NGS) online store. And study it is; the
workbook-like design was deliberate. The first printing sold out in
less than a month, evidence of the high regard for Jones and his
qualifications.
This is hardly a book
review. I merely want to point out the excellent growing body of work
that supplements Mills’ Evidence Explained[2] and the newly revised/published Genealogy Standards
from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.[3]
The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), first delineated by BCG in 2000, is gathering
increased international recognition. Jones has further refined
relevant concepts and terms to reflect some twenty-first century
nuances in the indispensable elements of sources, information, and
evidence. For example, authored works are a source
distinguished from original and derivative records; indeterminable
relates to information from an informant who cannot be
ascertained; negative evidence is "the absence of
information that answers a research question."[4]
Although proof in
purely scientific terms is an absolute (beyond a reasonable doubt),
genealogists and family historians employ the word to
make assertions about ancestral identity and relationships. Mastering
Genealogical Proof discusses the
word and its
application to genealogy. "Like all researchers,
genealogists require a multi-faceted standard to separate acceptable
information items and conclusions from those that are
unacceptable."[5]
Hence the "interdependent"
steps of the GPS that are repeated with each new research cycle.
"Meeting the GPS neither requires nor ensures perfect certainty.
Genealogical proofs―like
accepted conclusions in any research field―never
are final."[6]
We should recognize that
our "proofs," however careful the reasoning, are vulnerable
to the possibility of new evidence surfacing, thus invalidating our
result. Proof is a semantically and scientifically
argumentative word in our case. Is it misused? Do we need a different
word?
In a
blog post, Tony Proctor of Parallax
View said:
Just
as genealogy strives to explain the past from the available evidence,
so (pure-)science tries to explain the universe from experimental
evidence. Their common evidence-based aspirations lead them to the
same limitation: you can never prove anything absolutely, but you can
certainly disprove something. ...
I agree that historical research has a large element of precision in
such areas as finding all available evidence, analysing and
correlating that evidence, resolving any conflicts, and writing it up
clearly and unambiguously. However, whereas science reserves the term
proof for the absolute case, and doesn’t attempt to push any ideas
beyond the status of theory, genealogy employs the word proof in the
context of the less-precise disciplines. Despite attempts to define
proof for the genealogical context, I believe this disparity of
precision is at the root of many of our confusions.[7]
Tom Jones does not
specifically address what some are recently calling "degrees of
probability" (regarding how strong a genealogical assertion in
our work may be). John D. Reid in Canada's Anglo-Celtic
Connections raised the issue of measuring genealogical
conclusions by using a “quantitative probabilistic approach.”[8]
Another Jones, by the name of Paul, presented a very
interesting paper this month at the Ontario Genealogical Society's
Conference: "Determining
how much confidence you should have in your genealogical
inferences."
"This presentation illustrates basic probability calculations, corrects some common misunderstandings about probability and suggests how probability could, in some circumstances, augment but never replace the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)."[9]
Unfortunately
I was unable to attend this highly anticipated talk. In it he spoke
about basic probabilities, conditional probabilities, and Bayes
Theorem—tools
of potential assistance to the researcher.
I submit that anything
less than 50% "probability" in answering a research
question is not of supporting value to a hypothesis nor does it make
an acceptable conclusion. It probably means that I did not go
deep enough into sources or analysis to draw a confident, reasonable
conclusion; or else sources are disappointingly non-existent or
inaccessible. Writing out the results is a work in progress. However,
let's point out that unsatisfactory results can be worthwhile in
disproving a hypothesis or inspiring new research tactics.
It's encouraging to see
genealogists, from many different occupational skill perspectives,
contribute to the ongoing discussion.
[1]
Thomas W. Jones, Mastering
Genealogical Proof (Washington,
DC: National Genealogical Society, 2013).
[2]
Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence
Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace
(Baltimore, MD:
Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007). The website Evidence
Explained
(https://www.evidenceexplained.com/)
has
a regular Quick Tips blog among many other features.
[3]
Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG), Genealogy
Standards, 50th Anniversary Edition (Ancestry.com, 2014).
[4]
Jones, op. cit., 15.
[5]
Jones, op.cit., 2.
[6]
BCG, Genealogy Standards, 3.
[7]
Tony Proctor, "Proof of the Pudding," 26 December 2013,
Parallax View (http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.ca/).
[8]
John D. Reid, "Probability in genealogy," 24 July 2012;
"How to use probability in genealogy - part 1," 4 September
2012; "How to use probability in genealogy - part 2," 5
September 2012; "How to use probability in genealogy - part 3,"
6 September 2012 (among others), Canada’s Anglo-Celtic
Connections (anglo-celtic-connections.blogspot.ca).
[9]
Paul Jones, "Determining
how much confidence you should have in your genealogical inferences,"
Ontario Genealogical Society Conference 2014, Syllabus;
it's unclear yet whether the Syllabus
will be for sale at the OGS online store.
©
2014 Brenda Dougall Merriman