APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2003-12 > 1070820417


From: "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Re: Genealogical Theory
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:08:18 -0600
In-Reply-To: <a0.abe774.2d040e44@aol.com>


Hi Donn,

We're in closer agreement than I initially thought.

Although there are occasional exceptions, scientists are usually very
conservative in their presentation of facts. New research is not
considered factual until reviewed and validated by several independent
researchers.

As you suggest, measurements must be made carefully. You *should* look
askance at figures having too many significant digits. A calculated
result cannot have more precision than the original measurement even if
it appears to.

You've mentioned an important aspect of quantification here. The
information that genealogists use (e.g. dates) should be represented in
a way that is accurate even if it is approximate. Some might think this
is a computer-specific problem, but it really affects all communications
between genealogists.

The notion of peer review has been discussed periodically. Peer review
is largely the reason that science is self-correcting. It may take some
time, but scientific mistakes will eventually be discovered and
corrected. The same could be true for genealogy. However, a reviewer
must be able to understand the substance of the researcher's report. It
is not sufficient (in fact, not especially valuable) to simply check the
formatting of the information. For reviews to work successfully, dates,
locations, personal relationships, evidence, all other information
should be described accurately; preferably in a way that is universally
understandable. That's really why quantification is useful.

Our knowledge is always limited. It behooves us to continually look for
tools and techniques that increase knowledge and enable learning. Maybe
that philosophy could be called something like "analytic genealogy".

Thanks for the ongoing comments!

Jerry

---
Jerry Fitzpatrick
Software Renovation Corporation

http://www.SoftwareRenovation.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 11:02 PM
To:
Subject: [APG] Re: Genealogical Theory

Jerry wrote:

> Scientific facts *do* describe an objective reality (i.e. a reality
that
> is independent of the observer). The world exists whether you believe
it
> does or not.

I agree that scientific assertions about relationships between or among
things and forces may be facts, in that they describe the objective
reality, but
all too frequently the so-called "facts" are descriptions involving
imprecise
measurements, or calculations based on them, and are something less than
a
representation of the objective reality--at best, they approximate it,
like our
genealogical assertions.

> Measurement is never absolutely precise. However, that doesn't mean
that
> measurement is subjective or that the thing being measured is
imaginary.

This was my point, too. As applied to genealogy, we frequently can't
measure
with precision the length of a life, or the duration of a non-biological

relationship. The periods during which a relationship existed are
objective
realities--facts, if you will. However, our imprecise assertions about
them--not
mere beliefs, but the limits of our knowledge--are something less than
the
reality, and something less than fact.

One of the possible quantifications that might be applied to
genealogical
assertions is an indication of their precision--the difference between
"born in
March," "born 17 March," or "born 4:40 a.m. on 17 March."

I have always looked askance at measurements that include too many
significant figures, suggesting they were made more precisely than they
actually were.
Take, for example, a one-pound food container that says "Net Weight 454
grams."
This should mean that the contents have been weighed to a precision
that has
determined the objective reality to be between 453.5 and 454.5 grams,
but I
doubt very much that happens very often. More likely, the reality
hasn't been
determined any closer than somewhere between 445 and 455 grams, and
would
better be expressed as 450 grams. The conversion tables say 16 ounces
equals one
pound or 453.6 grams, but that's only if you've determined precisely
that you
have 16.00 ounces, and not 15.9 ounces (452 grams) or 16.1 ounces (457
grams).

We still need answers to my earlier question--what can we measure or
otherwise quantify in genealogy, on a basis that can be replicated,
independent of who
does it? And this discussion raises another question--do our
representations
of dates and times sufficiently indicate their precision, or do we
sometimes,
like the food container, represent our data as more precisely known than
the
source justifies? Does "10 MAR 1931" or "19310310" entered in a data
base mean
between midnight of the ninth and midnight of the tenth, or is it being
used
to represent a date known to lie between the sixth and 13th, but that
can't be
pinned down any closer?

Donn Devine, CG, CGI
Wilmington DE

CG, Certified Genealogist, CGI, and Certified Genealogical Instructor
are
service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under
license
by board certificants after periodic evaluation, and the board name is
registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.


==== APG Mailing List ====
The Association of Professional Genealogists
http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus Scanner]


This thread: