"Evidence is derived from appropriate, effective data analysis and correlation..."
I'm not certain I agree with the use of the word "derived" as it relates to evidence. Evidence is information obtained from sources and used in the creation of a proof argument. I understand that. The analysis and correlation of evidence is a part of the proof argument, but evidence needs to be in a form that is as true to the original as possible, given the occasional limitations one faces when transcribing, abstracting or extracting information from sources. The correlation and analysis is a part of the argument and reasoning that goes into the proof argument and the writing of that proof argument.
Evidence is extracted or abstracted from a source, but the analysis and correlation should be part of the proof not a part of the evidence.
To me when something is "derived," it is somehow altered, changed, or modified. I don't like to change evidence. I may change what my conclusions are. I may change my proof argument. I may alter my reasoning. The evidence should not change. The analysis might.
It seems to me that saying something to the import that the decision of whether to include certain information as evidence in a proof argument stems from effective data analysis and correlation. It just seems that the word "derive" is a little strong or has a connotation that "choose" does not.
Or am I missing something?
Source:
Board for Certification of Genealogists (Washington, D.C.). 2000. The BCG genealogical standards manuall. Orem, Utah: Ancestry Pub.
OK, Michael, I'll bite. I'll debate your assertion that "Evidence is information obtained from sources ... but evidence needs to be in a form that is as true to the original as possible."
ReplyDeleteOur research notes should be "as true to the original as possible." An *information statement* should be preserved "as true to the original as possible." However, evidence is our interpretation of the words in that statement.
Let us say that a petition for probate tells us that John died leaving four children, three of age and one an infant. Most new researchers and quite a few who have climbed family trees for years, would interpret that to mean that the man must have had two marriages: one marriage that produced now-grown children and a much-more recent marriage that produced a babe in arms. But you, knowing legal language, would interpret that word "infant" in a different manner. The evidence you would derive from the information statement is that the fourth child is simply under age 21.
Information is what the source actually says. Evidence is the meaning we derive from the information statement. That is why, to be meaningful proof, evidence has to be explained. Simply quoting a passage from a source would be insufficient (though likely helpful), because different people interpret statements in different ways.
I use "derived" quite a lot. For example, when I have a birthdate from one source and birth location from another source. I enter the evidence for a date under one entry, the evidence for the location in another entry, then the combined birthdate and location in another entry and indicate the information is derived (and preferred).
ReplyDeleteI'll continue the nibbling away at this, but I do think that there's not any difference of opinion in the need for clearly reasoned, sound analysis.
ReplyDeleteI thought the definition of "evidence" on Dictionary.com would be helpful, but it really wasn't. The definitions for evidence as a noun to me seemed to hinge on evidence as "information" and not the analysis. I might need to refer to another dictionary.
I'm starting to see information as all we obtain from a variety of sources and evidence as the information we choose to use in our proof. And if we choose information to use as evidence, we've obviously attached some value to it. I'm still finding myself stuck in the "evidence is information obtained from sources that we use in our analysis" mindset, with our interpretation of the evidence or the value that we attach to the evidence as being part of our analysis--not a part of the evidence.
The distinction may be theoretical. From a practical standpoint, as long as we locate all extant records as a part of an exhaustive search, transcribe those records faithfully and accurately, interpret statements from those records based upon our knowledge of the context in which the record was created, discuss all relevant information, and reach sound conclusions that are supported by the information we've obtained we'll be "ok."
Behind the scenes there may be differing viewpoints (or even confusion for some ) about where the information ends and the evidence begins. The problem is when there is confusion about obtaining records, interpreting records, etc.
But if, in the example ESM used, someone says that the word "infant" indicates a second marriage for the deceased, their definitions of information and evidence aren't the real problem. The problem there is an inadequate understanding of legal terminology of the era.
As an aside, when I was a mere youngster, I obtained two documents on a Kentucky ancestor--one in 1814 which referred to her as an "infant heir" of her father and the other her 1815 marriage record. I realized pretty quickly that something must be "wrong." Of course, it was my youthful interpretation of "infant" that was the problem---not the records.
My G+ response got lost I guess?
ReplyDeleteInferential genealogy involves creation of evidence based on multiple documents, where no single document answers the research question, i. e. who are the parents?
I believe it is in that context that the BCG manual statement is based.
I'm not certain where Pat's G+ post went...
ReplyDeleteI may be in the minority and I understand inferential genealogy and using multiple statements as evidence, but the phrase "creation of evidence" is one I'm not certain I'm comfortable with. I'm still stuck in this viewpoint of evidence as the information we've chosen to use in our proof and that any inferential conclusion we've reached based upon several items is a part of our analysis, but our conclusion is not the evidence.