Evidence Baby Steps: Difference between revisions

:[[Citation Baby Steps|Citation Baby Steps]]

:[[Genealogical Maturity|Genealogical Maturity]]

Evidence is more than information. It is the information we judge, as genealogists, to have some relevance to our research. Evidence is variously defined as “something that furnishes proof;”<ref>''Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary'', online edition (www.m-w.com : accessed 23 November 2009), “[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence evidenc[[Category:Evaluating evidence]].”</ref> “information that is relevant to the problem;”<ref>Elizabeth Shown Mills, ''Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace'', 2nd ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2009), 822.</ref> analyzed and correlated information assessed to be of sufficient quality;<ref>Christine Rose, ''Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case'' (San Jose, California: CR Publications, 2005), 2.</ref> and “the information that we conclude—after careful evaluation—supports or contradicts the statement we would like to make, or are about to make, about an ancestor.”<ref>The Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG), ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'', ed. Helen F. M. Leary (Provo, Utah: Ancestry, 2000), 8.</ref> We review a lot of information. Most of it is not applicable to our current search. What is relevant depends on the research question at hand. It determines what information is evidence and what is not. The information doesn’t have to be correct to be evidence. If it is relevant, it is still evidence. Seemingly contrary evidence may prove to be correct in the end. No genealogical conclusion is ever completely final. Entry level genealogists typically accept the work of others despite the lack of evidence. Discovering inconsistencies in trees, genealogists begin to think about the need for evidence. Still, they have limited understanding about the various kinds of evidence: ''direct'' or ''indirect'', ''consistent'' or ''conflicting'', and ''present'' or ''absent''.

Having been converted to the need for evidence, emerging genealogists depend almost exclusively on direct evidence. ''Direct evidence'' is relevant information that directly states the answer to a research question.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained'', 25.</ref> Let’s look at an example. Alonzo Pearis Raymond is Robert’s great-great-grandfather. His death certificate directly answers the question of his death date. It also directly answers the question of his birth date. While birth information on a death certificate is second hand, it is still direct evidence.  

When multiple sources of independent origin provide consistent information, it makes the evidence stronger. Sometimes multiple sources are inconsistent. Inconsistent evidence is sometimes called conflicting or contrary evidence. Here is an example. Several books give different birth years for Alonzo Pearis Raymond. Two books, ''The Mormon Battalion'' and ''Treasures of Pioneer History'', state that Alonzo was born in 1814. Another book, Andrew Jenson’s ''Church Chronology'', gives a birth date five years later: 1819. Practicing genealogists recognize the integrity of capturing inconsistent evidence, but they may not understand the need to resolve it. Proficient genealogists resolve it by accounting for it, explaining it, and reconciling the differences. The discrepancy in the Alonzo Raymond example could be resolved with a statement like this: “Further research shows that the earliest use of the 1814 date is the 1870 census. The earliest use of the 1819 date is Alonzo’s obituary. Birth information in the census and in obituaries are both suspect, so it is not surprising that the two are inconsistent. Further research is warranted.”  

The proficient genealogist utilizes indirect evidence. Indirect evidence does not answer the question all by itself. It must be combined with other evidence. Suppose we wish to answer the question, “What is the birth date of Robert’s Grandfather, Clate Raymond?” Family records identified Clate as the second oldest child. Further suppose that county birth records states that the second child was born in 1898 but does not name the child. Together the two records answer the question even though neither record has both the name and the birth date. Clate was born in 1898.