FTM-TECH-L Archives

Archiver > FTM-TECH > 2007-07 > 1185302224


From: Lawrence Bouett <>
Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Sources WAS Books revisited with examples
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:37:04 -0700
References: <c70.17a578e4.33d712a2@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <c70.17a578e4.33d712a2@aol.com>


wrote:
> <big snip>
>
> To argue that *all* sourcing in the research or first step of the program
> *has* to be a certain way to me is misleading. Better to teach that the
> sourcing for the primary source info that would be carried over to the second step
> needs to follow a certain criteria would be time better spent. Better to
> have a way to pick the sourcing that will be carried thru to book format and
> teach that that has a set format and needs to conform to that format, no matter
> what other sourcing is also used for the info up to the point where you get
> an acceptable secondary or primary source. The program needs to be flexible
> enough to handle both research sourcing and formal book-type sourcing and have
> the ability to pick the formal sourcing when moving from step 1 research to
> step 2 preparing for reports and books.
>
One must be careful here, however; there is, rarely, a single source
that proves a given fact. Proof may require the amalgamation of three,
five, or even 50 bits of information before a genealogical conclusion
may be legitimately drawn. I am talking about weighing the evidence in
order to draw conclusions.

For that, I rely on the concepts in the Genealogical Proof Standard
(GPS), which standard was first approved and published in 1997 by the
BCG, or Board for Certification of Genealogists. The purpose of
formulating the GPS was so that it would replace the old, inefficient
Preponderance of Evidence standard, which was derived from civil trials,
in which, a 51–49 split in evidence is often enough to decide a legal case.

I do not want 51–49 decisions in my genealogy. I *want* 99+, but I'll
settle for something in-between. I want the best I can get.

Remember, the door is never closed on a genealogical conclusion!

Best wishes,
Lawrence

This thread: