GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-01 > 1105060034


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: An encomium for genealogy
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:07:14 -0400
References: <crhhv9$8bp$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu><crhti4$275$1@sparta.btinternet.com><fb18bf284d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk><1105055229.933324.290900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1105055229.933324.290900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>


I am getting more philosophical here but as nothing is static
what has anyone actually reproduced. Many variables
may have changed but are not considered (time, temperature,
quantity of carbon isotopes, etc., etc.). What in effect is
that an event was recorded and someone was able to create
another event that "most agree" is similar enough to be the
same (all within degrees of confidence). Most agree as one
can gather enough to support that it must be true versus the
alternative.

In this context, the same can be applied to genealogy. A
document is one record of an event. It may be in error
and standing alone one has to assume it is either true or
false. However, chances are that there are other records
that will support or contradict the first document. In the
end people will come to an agreement as to what the likely
case was.

However, you must also remember that genealogy is now
not limited to records alone. As you suggest, in genealogy,
we can't reproduce an event in the past (ie. x was the parent of y).
However, the same occurs in science to a degree (ie. the so
called Big Bang). In both cases we still have the approach of
analysing what the effect of the event was. In genealogy the
use of DNA is an example of such a approach. The event has
passed and no paper record may survive but a DNA trail was left.
For example. we now know from DNA that the patriarch of some
of Sally Hemings' descendants was at least a member of Thomas
Jefferson's line. In time we may have tools to bring us to a universal
consensus that Thomas Jefferson was the father of one of more
children of Sally Hemings.

Food for thought.

Peter



At 07:47 PM 06/01/2005, you wrote:
>I think most scientists will maintain that the most important part of
>the definition of "science" is not the hypothesis but the testing of it
>and the ability to reproduce it. This, of course, reflects a bias
>toward the physical sciences as well as the tendency on the part of
>physical scientists to say that social sciences are not *really*
>sciences at all. In regard to "trusting the document", genealogy can
>never provide actual proof of anything since documentary evidence may
>be intentionally or unintentionally incorrect (as in protecting
>reputations, political maneuvering, etc.). The most anyone can say with
>a genealogical "proof" is that documentation supports a particular
>hypothesis and so we will go on as if we know it is true. Bronwen

This thread: