ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2005-08 > 1125350135


From: "V. Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
Subject: [ROOTS-L] I think that somebody has an agenda here, re: "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA, as used by research genealogists, a "pseudo science"?
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:15:35 -0700
References: <auto-000006691101@mail1.warpdriveonline.com>
In-Reply-To: <auto-000006691101@mail1.warpdriveonline.com>


Glen Todd wrote:

>
>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>X-Message: #1
>>Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:52:32 -0700
>>From: "V. Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
>>Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA,
>>as used by research
>> genealogists, a "pseudo science"?
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>Re: [ROOTS-L] "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA,
>>as used by research genealogists, a "pseudo science"?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think that somebody has an agenda here. I am active on Genealogy-DNA-L,
>and I think that there is a very clear and scientific understanding of
>exactly what genetics can and cannot tell us. Nobody is claiming that it
>can produce the same resolution in the same way as paper trail genealogy; on
>the other hand, it infallibly records what did happen instead of just what
>somebody wrote down. (Which may not always please everybody.) It can
>often provide supporting evidence for a paper trail -- or disprove one
>(which again may displease some people). It can sometimes help select
>between multiple scenarios; for instance suggesting which of several
>families of the same name in the same town a child most likely belonged to.
>Again, though, it doesn't always support 'traditional' social or
>church-sanctioned constructs and strictures, which is why discussion of DNA
>evidence is considered offensive on many 'traditional' genealogy lists.
>They don't want to know the facts; rather, they want support for their
>preconceptions.
>
>Glen
>
>
I think that somebody has an agenda here,
re: "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA,
as used by research genealogists, a "pseudo science"?

"In scientific discourses theoretical concepts are not true or false
elements or pictures of some part of reality, but are constructions
designed to do a job the best possible way. Different conceptions of
fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful
depending on what theories (and in the end what practical actions) they
are expected to support."
http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html

WORDS USED:
"Nobody is claiming that it can produce the same resolution"
"it infallibly records what did happen"
"can often provide supporting evidence"
"or disprove one"
"can sometimes help select"
"for instance suggesting"

"The tendency to use and define terms in order to impress other people
has been called persuasive definition."
http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html#How

WORDS USED:
"it doesn't always support 'traditional' social
or church-sanctioned constructs and strictures,"

"discussion of DNA evidence is considered offensive
on many 'traditional' genealogy lists. They don't want
to know the facts; rather, they want support for their
preconceptions."

DNA, as currently promoted for research genealogists,
appears to fall into the category of a genealogy "scam".
http://www.answers.com/scam&r=67

Respectfully yours,

Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, {both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/




This thread: