TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-06 > 1277853672
From: Sue <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Evidence Explained Discussion - Fundamentals of EvidenceAnalysis - Basic Issues (1.1)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:21:12 -0700
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4C2A7767.email@example.com><AANLkTilHMuEC7T5uv9TCn-7LzUHWr5q4ooSV3KP05eTH@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/29/2010 3:59 PM, Harold Henderson wrote:
> Interesting thoughts! I have no problem with trying to disprove one's hypothesis, but I would be uncomfortable *starting out* with a known Thomas Smith and gathering data about a bunch of George Smiths who
> might conceivably be his father --*unless there were a decent reason to do so.
Indeed, you are correct. And I do bring what I data I have already
collected to the party. In an effort to keep my answer short enough to
be readable, I inadvertently left out pertinent steps. Data previously
collected that is pertinent to the problem would go into a T before I
even started looking at various George Smiths. This could include
things such as George Smith in the correct age group living nearby, or
Thomas living with a step-father at the age of 10, his mother having
remarried, and so on.
My method doesn't operate in a vacuum, but uses any information I have
access to about the relationship. I do try to break very complex
questions down and work on the pieces, but the pieces all stay together.
|Re: [TGF] Evidence Explained Discussion - Fundamentals of EvidenceAnalysis - Basic Issues (1.1) by Sue <>|