Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Craz

[Tony Hoskins]

"what makes you think any other pedigree representing the same
'scholarly tradition' should be viewed with anything but extreme
skepticism?"

Todd's points are excellent (and his illustration of
Biblical-mythological-Saxon graftings both true and amusing).

Along these lines, I like to remember Noel Stevenson's words:

"Anyone who presents for consideration a pedigree, ancient or modern,
is subject to the principle known as the "burden of proof." It is the
duty of the proponent of the pedigree to prove every fact in the
pedigree. He cannot say to someone "You can't disprove it." The compiler
or person claiming the pedigree is bound by the duty to establish its
authenticity." [_Genealogical Evidence_ (revd. ed., 1989), p. 39].

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster. This is not to say that some "facts"
are not actually sometimes in the form of complex assemblages of data,
synthesis, analysis - ideally resulting in publication in a book or
journal of acknowledged authoritativeness. However, for the purposes of
mundane (non-historiographical) genealogy, Stevenson's words serve
well.







Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

He cannot say to someone "You can't disprove it."

if only this applied to religion what a wonderful would this would be!

[Renia]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"what makes you think any other pedigree representing the same
'scholarly tradition' should be viewed with anything but extreme
skepticism?"

Todd's points are excellent (and his illustration of
Biblical-mythological-Saxon graftings both true and amusing).

Along these lines, I like to remember Noel Stevenson's words:

"Anyone who presents for consideration a pedigree, ancient or modern,
is subject to the principle known as the "burden of proof." It is the
duty of the proponent of the pedigree to prove every fact in the
pedigree. He cannot say to someone "You can't disprove it." The compiler
or person claiming the pedigree is bound by the duty to establish its
authenticity." [_Genealogical Evidence_ (revd. ed., 1989), p. 39].

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster. This is not to say that some "facts"
are not actually sometimes in the form of complex assemblages of data,
synthesis, analysis - ideally resulting in publication in a book or
journal of acknowledged authoritativeness. However, for the purposes of
mundane (non-historiographical) genealogy, Stevenson's words serve
well.

True enough but some facts in pedigrees can simply never be proved.

[Gjest]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.

This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.

A connection does not need even one absolutely proven fact,
which alone proves the connection.

Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5"
Crazies?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:02:40 -0600
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Tony Hoskins wrote:

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.

This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.

A connection does not need even one absolutely proven fact,
which alone proves the connection.

Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are
supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted.

Doug McDonald

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Are "TAF" & "MI5" Crazies?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:53:20 -0000

<G>

DSH

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6bc82ffe-8f30-4ec9-9a3b-
[email protected]...

On Jan 2, 7:24 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.

. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.

Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.

Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough. From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.

--------------------------------------------

taf is a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he can't
find
any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF.

Sure he can, Robert Peck de Beckles

G

DSH

: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5"
Crazies?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:02:40 -0600
References: <[email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.

This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.

Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted. Doug McDonald

taf was a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he
couldn't
find any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF and knew he would never make Willy
J. Coyote's bio webpages.

Assured now he can, his ancents back to Robert Peck de Beckles,
taf claims a page in history alongside Robert Cecil de Heckles


~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:06:08 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

taf was a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he
couldn't
find any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF and knew he would never make Willy
J. Coyote's bio webpages.

Assured now he can, his ancents back to Robert Peck de Beckles,
taf claims a page in history alongside Robert Cecil de Heckles


~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

But I'm really Emily Arnold tired of
laying-low and back to have a Peck,
ready to DiSH out big Grins and big Bills.

Make Them Happy Make Them Pay
That's what Dickinson would say.

My Secret Love's no secret anymore.

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:06:08 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
[email protected]> wrote:


taf was a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he
couldn't
find any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF and knew he would never make Willy
J. Coyote's bio webpages.

Assured now he can, his ancents back to Robert Peck de Beckles,
taf claims a page in history alongside Robert Cecil de Heckles


~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne


But I'm really Emily Arnold tired of
laying-low and back to have a Peck,
ready to DiSH out big Grins and big Bills.

Make Them Happy Make Them Pay
That's what Dickinson would say.

My Secret Love's no secret anymore.

I think you have embarrassed yourself more than enough, Mr Arnold, to
bother start making serious discussions here.

[Gjest]

On Jan 2, 4:55 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <[email protected]> wrote:

Along these lines, I like to remember Noel Stevenson's words:

"Anyone who presents for consideration a pedigree, ancient or modern,
is subject to the principle known as the "burden of proof." It is the
duty of the proponent of the pedigree to prove every fact in the
pedigree. He cannot say to someone "You can't disprove it." The compiler
or person claiming the pedigree is bound by the duty to establish its
authenticity." [_Genealogical Evidence_ (revd. ed., 1989), p. 39].

This "You can't disprove it" argument is particularly troublesome with
invented pedigrees. One will never find a contemporary document that
says "person X, who 600 years from now someone will put in a pedigree,
does not exist". The only way to formally disprove it would be to
find the actual line, but if that was readily available, there would
have been no need to invent one.

taf

[John Brandon]

Make Them Happy Make Them Pay
That's what Dickinson would say.

So are you really the same Bill Arnold who wrote _Make Them Happy,
Make Them Pay_? I thought we had decided you wouldn't be likely to be
the same person, despite the statement of the OCLC authority record.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 3, 3:04 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"what makes you think any other pedigree representing the same
'scholarly tradition' should be viewed with anything but extreme
skepticism?"

Todd's points are excellent (and his illustration of
Biblical-mythological-Saxon graftings both true and amusing).

Along these lines, I like to remember Noel Stevenson's words:

"Anyone who presents for consideration a pedigree, ancient or modern,
is subject to the principle known as the "burden of proof." It is the
duty of the proponent of the pedigree to prove every fact in the
pedigree. He cannot say to someone "You can't disprove it." The compiler
or person claiming the pedigree is bound by the duty to establish its
authenticity." [_Genealogical Evidence_ (revd. ed., 1989), p. 39].

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster. This is not to say that some "facts"
are not actually sometimes in the form of complex assemblages of data,
synthesis, analysis - ideally resulting in publication in a book or
journal of acknowledged authoritativeness. However, for the purposes of
mundane (non-historiographical) genealogy, Stevenson's words serve
well.

True enough but some facts in pedigrees can simply never be proved.

Hmmm...

slippery little devils, facts...proofs in puddin, really

unreal renia, unreal renia, unreal renia

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval