GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1187080605
From: John Plant <>
Subject: Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Events [FPE]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:36:45 +0100
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <46BC2EEC.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
> <<In a message dated 08/10/07 02:23:34 Pacific Standard Time,
> The matter of (a) has not anything in particular to do with me. It is
> more a matter for the Pomery book and the GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list
> for example. >>
> You're a trained scientist.
> And yet from the above we see something akin to, "they said it, it must
> be true".
> It's odd how far apart physics is from genealogy I suppose. One would
> think a physicist would know that you trust data not authorities, and
> especially not self-proclaimed authorities.
> It's not *true* that the FPE rate is thus and so, it's reported by
> person xyz. That does not make it a fact. If you're re-reporting their
> statements you need to make that more clear, and express some *healthy*
> skepticism about any statements make *off the cuff* with no data to back
> them up.
> Don't you think?
> Will "I don't think, I just AM" Johnson
Here we are more or less on the same wavelength. However, I am not
saying: "they said it, it must be true". What I am saying is: this is
the current rule of thumb for the current state of the art.
This rule of thumb has to be seem in the context of the previous
methodology for name distribution data: "only small families in a single
area can be regarded as a single family". At least the DNA evidence
provides an advance on this. If you look at my Nomina 28 paper, you will
see that I discuss the Y-DNA evidence *in conjunction with* the name