Our Use of the Word "Proof"

I've been muddling over the concept of a style guide for some time now. Not because I like to sit down and write definitions, but because I believe that it makes for clearer and more consistent writing. It is important to say what you mean, mean what you say, and know what you are saying.

I know that few genealogy blogs do not have a style guide and that's really of no concern to me. An earlier blog post discussed how we are handling the distinction between homestead and homeplace.

The word "proof" is another word that genealogists and others throw around. "I have proof of this or I have proof of that." Usually what they mean is that they have one record or piece of paper that says something--usually what they were hoping it would say. I'm no different. I get excited when a piece of paper or a record says what I want it to say. But the excitement needs to wane so that the analysis can begin. And the analysis consists of more than simply typing up the record and saying it is true.

While I'm still refining some concepts in my head, use of the word "proof" on my blogs will mean that I have looked at all the available information (after performing an exhaustive search) have concluded that a certain statement is true based upon what I have located. That's not quite how the BCG manual defines proof in Genealogy Standards, but it's going to be the definition I use on my blogs.

Proof as a noun

Material from an exhaustive search, that when combined with analysis, logic, and reasoning supports a genealogical statement.

Prove as a verb

To write a proof or go through the process of gathering information from which a proof can be made. We will refrain from using "prove" as a verb until the material has been gathered and the analysis has been done.

We may tweak this definition as necessary. If we do, we'll simply strikeout the original and put the new text in red. That way later readers can see our thought process a little more clearly.

Don't Be Indifferent About Transcriptions

Several years ago, I wrote about a 1922  baptismal entry from a Roman Catholic church in Chicago, Illinois. There were several conclusions based upon the transcription of that entry that I received from the church, along with other information I had from the family. Those conclusions were partially based upon the belief that the transcript (shown below) was complete:

The conclusions will not be stated here in their entirety, but essentially I concluded that Theodore Hoontes (an uncle of Anna Apgar by marriage) had traveled from Clinton County, New York, to be at the baptism and that the baptism had been performed in 1922 in preparation for the mother's marriage later that year in the Roman Catholic church.

Not exactly.

The transcript that I received was not complete.The records of this church were some that were recently released by FamilySearch on their website in their collection of Roman Catholic records from the City of Chicago.

Anna was baptized on the same day as her older siblings, Elizabeth, Lillian, and Louis Apgar. That detail was not on the transcription. And, the notation in the baptismal entry(made by the priest) indicated that the children had been attending school when it was discovered they were not baptized and that "the Sisters" had encouraged them to be baptized. The notation continues to say that the godfather Theodore Hoontes was not present at the baptism and that "Mrs. Esther McCasland," sister of the mother of the children, acted as sponsor. Mrs. Apgar is referred to by the priest as an "indifferent Catholic." She and Mr. Apgar were married by a Justice of the Peace in 1909 and he left the family in 1916.

Based upon this statement, my theory about the timing of the baptism will need to be revised. My theory that Hoontes was visiting Chicago at the time of the baptism is incorrect as well.

Lessons

Transcriptions can be incomplete and any conclusions that are based on transcriptions are always subject to revisions.

The Genealogy Proof Standard indicates that any "fact" is always subject to revision--particularly if additional information comes to light.