TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264032812
From: Steve Judd <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] To codify or not to codify
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:13:32 -0500
References: <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>,<12BFE09E3B3642C2A38A0D0FD531A61F@acer511eba12df>,<email@example.com><COL108-W27FD598FD9B2D9B197EED392640@phx.gbl><firstname.lastname@example.org><15E776ACFE614740902E3F0065B2A0BC@JackPC><email@example.com><BB5D934E98294B2EA2F46845BD03CEBE@JackPC> <firstname.lastname@example.org><165612BE9DAE4470BB481C218D173F69@JackPC> <4B577E08.email@example.com><1FC8DE8BEEE646F7A633CAC88F4C9063@acer511eba12df>
Hi Larry et al,
> Steve, excellent overview.
> But in regard to a professional's day to day
> client work, who determines whether a statement of fact adequately meets
> this Proof Standard?
Formally? I don't know. Informally, I do in my work and I would hope any
professional would also.
> Who determines that it is "proved" if not the
> researcher on his/her own?
The researcher and the recipient of the researcher's work. Remember, the
GPS is a standard means of determining the validity of each genealogical
statement. I submit that the researcher and recipient of the
researcher's work both determine the validity of each such statement.
> That's why it isn't objective proof of anything.
The GPS speaks to the validity of statements. I wonder if you are
thinking of the GPS as guaranteeing absolute truth. If so, that's a
misuse of the GPS standard. The GPS doesn't claim to be objective proof
of anything and I'm not clear on what you mean by that phrase.
> It's a matter of your own opinion, well-educated, certified, or not.
It's more than my or your opinion...it's our opinion as compared to a
standard that aims to assure a higher probability of validity than if we
didn't perform the five steps of the GPS.
> Great idea, but instead give me access to voluntary peer review, research
> replication, that's where the real meat lies when it comes to evaluating
> work or judging credibility of statements of fact within an argument.
When I want peer review of my work, I'll post a request on a forum, ask
a peer for assistance, or write an article or other publication. This is
my access to voluntary peer review. Enabling research replication is one
of the purposes of citing our sources (step 2 of the GPS). I would say
that research replication is insufficient to be the "real meat" in
evaluating another's work or judging it's credibility. I would say that
it takes the determination that adequate sources were examined (step 1,
the reasonably exhausive search), adequate citation (step 2), correct
analysis and correlation of the information (step 3), resolution of
conflicting evidence (step 4), and a soundly reasoned, coherently
written conclusion (step 5) in order to feel confident that the
information I'm presenting to my client is valid. In other words, if I
do less than the full GPS, I'm cheating myself and my clients. I believe
the "real meat" includes all five steps.
> Besides, feedback may be the best teacher.
Agreed. Feedback from peers, clients, and anyone else is a great teacher.