73,385
edits
Contradictions and discrepancies: Difference between revisions
Contradictions and discrepancies (view source)
Revision as of 00:55, 15 November 2008
, 15 November 2008no edit summary
(add links) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}}<br> Contradictory evidence and discrepancies are normal in genealogical research. A novice researcher tends to ignore discrepancies. Experienced researchers tend to embrace them. | {{stub}}<br> Contradictory evidence and discrepancies are normal in genealogical research. A novice researcher tends to ignore discrepancies. Experienced researchers tend to embrace them. | ||
== Any contradictory evidence must be resolved<ref>''[http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43567656&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;referer=brief_results The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual]'' (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2, and Thomas W. Jones, "Proved?: Five Ways to Prove Who Your Ancestor Was" (printed handout for a lecture presented to library staff, 23 October 2003, Family History Library, Salt Lake City), 1.</ref> == | The best way to analyze information is by thoroughly researching and comparing ALL sources against each other. Understanding how to interpret the sources cannot happen until a researcher has detected and analyzed the differences and similarities between sources. | ||
== Any contradictory evidence must be resolved<ref>''[http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43567656&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;referer=brief_results The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual]'' (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2, and Thomas W. Jones, "Proved?: Five Ways to Prove Who Your Ancestor Was" (printed handout for a lecture presented to library staff, 23 October 2003, Family History Library, Salt Lake City), 1.</ref> == | |||
The best researchers always openly acknowledge, analyze, and attempt to explain discrepancies. It shows the thoroughness of their research, their openness with '''''all''''' the evidence, and their analytical and reasoning skills. Knowing and admitting the weaknesses of a case leads to better analysis and conclusions. It strengthens the genealogical community by setting an example of honesty, and pointing the way to better interpretation of the evidence. | The best researchers always openly acknowledge, analyze, and attempt to explain discrepancies. It shows the thoroughness of their research, their openness with '''''all''''' the evidence, and their analytical and reasoning skills. Knowing and admitting the weaknesses of a case leads to better analysis and conclusions. It strengthens the genealogical community by setting an example of honesty, and pointing the way to better interpretation of the evidence. | ||