TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-10 > 1286639835


From: Michele Kemper <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] EE Discussion - Section 1.15 - Proof Arguments
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:05:10 -0400
References: <4CA23816.3030500@yahoo.com> <4CB07A6D.9080609@yahoo.com><827ED33B-30F9-471A-ACCC-F0796775FCDD@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <827ED33B-30F9-471A-ACCC-F0796775FCDD@me.com>


Hi, Jacqueline.

I sent two emails out on section 1.14. The first was on 28 Sept while
the second one was on 1 October. There actually was quite a bit of
discussion.

Hope that helps.

Michele

On 10/9/2010 11:26 AM, Jacqueline Wilson wrote:
> I most have missed something big time as I have not seen any discussion on the process map and I read every e-mail I get from TGF. When did the discussion start?
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Michele Kemper wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> The discussion of the process map for evidence analysis did have quite a
> bit of feedback. Part of that discussion came into this post's subject:
> Proof Arguments.
>
> So, on to the next section:
>
> Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Evidence Explained : Citing History Sources
> from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
> Company, 2007.
>
> One of the cornerstones of modern genealogy research is the proof argument.
>
> EE presents the definition of a proof argument as follows: "The paper or
> writing by which we present our case for a conclusion." 1
>
> It contains five essential elements
>
> * "explanation of the problem;
> * identification of known resources;
> * presentation of evidence, supported by thorough source citations
> and analyses;
> * explicit discussion of any conflicting evidence;
> * summation of main points and a reiteration of the conclusion." 2
>
> Another point made in EE is "When contradictory or conflicting evidence
> exists, we must address it and offer quality evidence or reasoning to
> rebut the contradiction or resolve the conflict." 3
>
> A few questions:
>
> 1. I noted that some people had an issue with calling this type of
> research product a "proof argument." Can you elaborate?
> 2. Do you have any issues with the definition presented for the
> "proof argument"?
> 3. Do you think the elements of the proof argument are comprehensive?
> Do you think something should be added or removed from the list
> 4. Have you ever done a proof argument as part of your work as a
> professional? If so, can you elaborate on the problem you were
> trying to clarify and how you went about it?
> 5. If you have an example of a proof argument, can you show the group?
>
>
> The next section begins looking at problematic concepts and trying to
> get clarification.
>
> Until next,
>
> Michele
>>
>> 1 Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained : Citing History Sources
>> from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
>> Company, 2007), 26.
>> 2 Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained : Citing History Sources
>> from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
>> Company, 2007), 26.
>> 3 Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained : Citing History Sources
>> from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
>> Company, 2007), 26.
> 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
>
> Jacqueline Wilson
> Evanston, IL
>
>
> Professional Indexer, Historian, and Genealogist
> Deputy Sheriff for Publications of the Chicago Corral of the Westerners
> IASPR Newsletter Editor
>
> "Wilssearch - your service of choice for the indexing challenged genealogist."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This thread: