TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives
Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264242639
From: "Christopher Gray" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Legal Proof or LogicalReasoning? (wasTheGenealogical Proof Standard)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:30:39 -0000
References: <317720153.1226111264179478778.JavaMail.root@mbs16.homesteadmail.com><6323AD1280054599A8C8ACFCB6CAEC08@acer511eba12df> <5B0CD28DCD5941DF82F56696A01989DB@JackPC><18271930A5A74F81A9EED5F29A8B7106@acer511eba12df>
In-Reply-To: <18271930A5A74F81A9EED5F29A8B7106@acer511eba12df>
Larry,
> Why have exhaustive at all? That's the weak part of the concept.
> You can't possibly do a search that exhausts every source (as
> you point out), so how can you then be just partially
> exhaustive? Exhaustive searches aren't possible in any regard
> so that makes the measure impossible to determine, but maybe
> that's why it's phrased as it is. Reasonably ______? ...
If I remember correctly, there is a legal concept of "reasonably" - or some very similar term. For example in the case of negligence where a person should have taken all reasonable steps to (etc). Surely that concept would be used in genealogy where one takes all reasonable steps to prove, or disprove, an hypothesis. Whether or not the steps taken were reasonable would be a matter of judgement by "seasoned" exponents of the discipline - and so the "peer review". In my humble opinion, the word "exhaustive" has too many negative connotations and "extensive" would be better. "Reasonableness" would take into account such as the time, fiscal and logistic limits placed on the work. Because of this, I would suggest that the limits are defined in the report / article. [This definition itself needs to be written in a positive manner - or at the very least neutral.]
Chris
This thread: