73,385
edits
Contradictions and discrepancies: Difference between revisions
Contradictions and discrepancies (view source)
Revision as of 13:39, 15 November 2008
, 15 November 20082
(informant) |
(2) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The best way to analyze information is by thoroughly researching and comparing against each other ALL the sources about an ancestor and his family. Understanding how to interpret the sources cannot happen until a researcher has detected and analyzed the differences and similarities between sources. Pondering and explaining discrepancies and contradictions is a crucial part of the analysis process. | The best way to analyze information is by thoroughly researching and comparing against each other ALL the sources about an ancestor and his family. Understanding how to interpret the sources cannot happen until a researcher has detected and analyzed the differences and similarities between sources. Pondering and explaining discrepancies and contradictions is a crucial part of the analysis process. | ||
== Any contradictory evidence must be resolved<ref>''[http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43567656&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;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> == | == Any contradictory evidence must be resolved<ref>''[http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43567656&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;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), 1-2.</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. | ||
If a researcher hesitates to use sources with contradictions or discrepancies he may overlook important evidence. If he hesitates to mention discrepancies it makes his case look weaker. Other researchers may come to believe evidence was overlooked, or that such research is unreliable. | If a researcher hesitates to use sources with contradictions or discrepancies he may overlook important evidence. If he hesitates to mention discrepancies it makes his case look weaker. Other researchers may come to believe evidence was overlooked, or that such research is unreliable. | ||
== Weigh these factors == | == Weigh these factors == | ||