TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-09 > 1285770293
From: Harold Henderson <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Negative Evidence
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:24:53 -0500
The more different ideas I hear about "negative evidence," the more I am
inclined not to use the term at all, just describe whatever the situation
is, or at least be very clear how I am using the term. I look forward to
hearing other approaches.
Baseline: page 25, section 1.14 of EE: Negative evidence = "An inference we
can draw from the absence of information that should exist under particular
Note that the inference could be quite limited, say if we're looking at a
birth register known to have very incomplete coverage of births in that time
The citation requirements for this kind of evidence (whatever you call it!)
are, of necessity, pretty stringent: pp. 463-464, section 9.37.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Christy Fillerup <
> It seems like we have a bit of a semantics question. I'm interested in the
> group consensus. How would you define "Negative Evidence"?
> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive
> environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to
> professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list.
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Research and Writing from NW Indiana
|Re: [TGF] Negative Evidence by Harold Henderson <>|