Even if unchallenged for a decade or more, preponderance of evidence
never becomes real proof. But with the destruction of records in VA
and NC by war, fire and flood the proof that people need will never be >available. But sometimes fragments remain and they lead to
unassailable conclusions.
Do most resondents here include PoE with proper notation in your
genealogy, or do most of you stop including people when the actual
proof stops?
What we use as proof can often be misleading. Children often changed
families because of death, baseborn children usually assumed the name
of the mother leading to improper assumption of facts because of
scarcity of facts, etc. Sometimes we just don't know that our proof is
not proof.
A discussion might be interesting.
Even if unchallenged for a decade or more, preponderance of evidence
never becomes real proof. But with the destruction of records in VA
and NC by war, fire and flood the proof that people need will never be available. But sometimes fragments remain and they lead to
unassailable conclusions.
In the population I study, many other people made also they own
studies, and many more descendants added hypothesis to link families
when records are lost.
Thanks to MT-DNA, in some cases, the parents on the mother side can
be corrected. Nonetheless, this is not frequent. In most cases, I
use them anyway.
I just add some mark near the link. Probably or possibily, depending
on my opinion about the strenght of the evidence.
Denis
On 14/01/19 13:52, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Even if unchallenged for a decade or more, preponderance of evidence
never becomes real proof. But with the destruction of records in VA
and NC by war, fire and flood the proof that people need will never be
available. But sometimes fragments remain and they lead to
unassailable conclusions.
Two thoughts (from an ex forensic scientist):
From a forensic point of view if one were assembling genealogical
evidence for a case at civil law, say to decide on an inheritance, then
that would be the standard of proof.
From a scientific point of view one doesn't expect a theory to be
conclusively proven, just proven false if it's wrong. Accept what
conclusion the currently available evidence seems to be pointing to but
be open to the contradictory fact that might come along later. Of
course the would-be contradictory fact will have to be closely examined
- but then all the contributory evidence that's established the
conclusion being challenged should have been closely examined as it was >acquired.
Ian
Even if unchallenged for a decade or more, preponderance of evidence
never becomes real proof. But with the destruction of records in VA
and NC by war, fire and flood the proof that people need will never be available. But sometimes fragments remain and they lead to
unassailable conclusions.
Do most resondents here include PoE with proper notation in your
genealogy, or do most of you stop including people when the actual
proof stops?
What we use as proof can often be misleading. Children often changed
families because of death, baseborn children usually assumed the name
of the mother leading to improper assumption of facts because of
scarcity of facts, etc. Sometimes we just don't know that our proof is
not proof.
A discussion might be interesting.
Hugh
Preponderance of evidence is all we can ever deal with. Mama's baby, Papa'= >s maybe.
And we don't even know for sure that it's Mama's baby (don't roya=
l births always have a witness?) I try to think that I'm in front of a jur= >y of 12 reputable (whatever that means) genealogists and I need to convince=
them of something. You just go with what you've got.
To me, no slight intended, science is what it is until something
better comes along.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 03:19:11 -0800 (PST), shmartonak@gmail.com wrote:
Great comments in this thread!Preponderance of evidence is all we can ever deal with. Mama's baby, Papa'= >>s maybe.
A lot of purists who trace back to Charlemagne will be upset with
that. But it's too true to ignore - sorta turns all genealogists into
Family Historians.
And we don't even know for sure that it's Mama's baby (don't roya=
l births always have a witness?) I try to think that I'm in front of a jur= >>y of 12 reputable (whatever that means) genealogists and I need to convince= >> them of something. You just go with what you've got.
That certainly adds a more casual view to genealogy. The problem is
that it makes poor researchers equal to expert researchers. I can find
9 sets of parents on Ancestry for a person I research and all can be
proven wrong. Yet they will be there forever because somebody says so.
I even find one of my old theories posted as fact and I disproved it
20 years ago. Fortunately they credited themselves, not me.
Hugh
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:41:36 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 03:19:11 -0800 (PST), shmartonak@gmail.com wrote:Great comments in this thread!
Preponderance of evidence is all we can ever deal with. Mama's baby, Papa'= >>>s maybe.
A lot of purists who trace back to Charlemagne will be upset with
that. But it's too true to ignore - sorta turns all genealogists into >>Family Historians.
And we don't even know for sure that it's Mama's baby (don't roya=
l births always have a witness?) I try to think that I'm in front of a jur= >>>y of 12 reputable (whatever that means) genealogists and I need to convince= >>> them of something. You just go with what you've got.
That certainly adds a more casual view to genealogy. The problem is
that it makes poor researchers equal to expert researchers. I can find
9 sets of parents on Ancestry for a person I research and all can be
proven wrong. Yet they will be there forever because somebody says so.
I even find one of my old theories posted as fact and I disproved it
20 years ago. Fortunately they credited themselves, not me.
Hugh
Even "facts" given by one's parents or grandparents sometimes turn out
to be a fabrication. An excellent example was the "fact" (discussed in
the recent "Finding your Roots") that George R.R. Martin's grandfather
had abandoned his wife and took up with another woman, when it turns
out that it was his wife that had been impregnated by another man, and
the man that Martin had always thought to be his grandfather wasn't
any relationship to him at all!
I guess we have to say "proof" must be confirmed by DNA, everything
else has to be considered as our best understanding.
Even "facts" given by one's parents or grandparents sometimes turn out
to be a fabrication.
I have researched the Wyatts back to 1320 - to 1656 in the USA.
On 15/01/2019 21:01, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
I have researched the Wyatts back to 1320 - to 1656 in the USA.
Whereabouts were they from before moving to the United States.
Richard
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:05:45 +0000, Richard Smith
<richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:
On 15/01/2019 21:01, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
I have researched the Wyatts back to 1320 - to 1656 in the USA.
Whereabouts were they from before moving to the United States.
There were apparently 2 branches of Wyatts in Wales and England. I
have not seen where anyone has been able to link them.
One branch immigrated to the New England States while the other went
to VA. I have not seen them linked and I can't link them. But I have researched the genealogy of both.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:08:44 +0000, Richard Smith
<richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:
Below is the line on the Wyatts who immigrated to VA as I have them.
It did not format very well.
1-Adam Wiat b. 1320, Yorkshire England
2-William Wiat b. 1350, Kent England
3-Richard Wiat b. 1383, Kent England
4-Geoffrey Wiat b. 1410, Yorkshire England
5-Richard Wiat Sr. b. 1435, Yorkshire England
6-Henry Wiat Earl of Norfolk b. 1460, Kent England
7-Sir Thomas Wiat The Elder The Poet b. 1503 Kent England
8-Sir Thomas Wiat The Younger b. 1521, Kent England
9-Sir George Wiat b. 1550, Allington, Kent England
10-REV Haute Wyatt b. 6 Jun 1594 Kent
Thanks. That's the same family I spent a while researching, though my
focus was really only on generation 5-8, so I can't add anything to what
you have.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:24:49 |
| Calls: | 6,650 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,625 |