TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-10 > 1285951653


From: <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] EE Discussion - Section 1.14 - Process Mapfor EvidenceAnalysis (Part 2)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:47:33 -0500
References: <e4c1e.6aef4027.39d76415@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <e4c1e.6aef4027.39d76415@aol.com>


Michelle asked:
>Under what circumstances do you think that a proof argument is required
over simply citing sources?"

Judy added:
>Time after time I have seen writers misusing a genealogical-proof argument.


Jacqueline wrote:
> Perhaps my problem is with the word argument in proof argument as there is
no disagreement, no argument involved?

I'd also like to add here that the next edition of EE (which *isn't* coming
anytime soon!) should discuss the diffrence between genealogical proof
*arguments* and genealogical proof *summaries.* There are actually three
different options involved here:

1. "simply citing sources"
2. summarizing the 'proof' that led to a conclusion
3. arguing the evidence that supports a conclusion

In the meanwhile, if you haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend Barbara Vines
Little's article from the September '09 issue of _OnBoard_, in which she
describes these distinctions. It's archived online in the Skillbuilding
module of www.bcgcertification.org.

Elizabeth
(who will go away now and not butt into this discussion further :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
The Evidence Series




This thread: