318,531
edits
Contradictions and discrepancies (view source)
Revision as of 13:36, 7 October 2015
, 7 October 2015Text replace - "Category:Research_Analysis" to "Category:Evaluating evidence"
Sandralpond (talk | contribs) m (removed &) |
m (Text replace - "Category:Research_Analysis" to "Category:Evaluating evidence") |
||
| 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/43567656referer=brief_results The BCG Genealogical Standards | == Any contradictory evidence must be resolved<ref>''[http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43567656referer=brief_results The BCG Genealogical Standards Manua[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]'' (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. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Weigh these factors == | == Weigh these factors == | ||
As you analyze a contradiction or discrepancy, weigh the following factors from the Wiki article [[Use the Information#Evaluate_the_Evidence|Evaluate the | As you analyze a contradiction or discrepancy, weigh the following factors from the Wiki article [[Use the Information#Evaluate_the_Evidence|Evaluate the Evidenc[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] to help determine which sources are most trustworthy, and to help explain possible causes of the problem:<br> | ||
*[[Use the Information#Relevance_of_the_Record|Relevance of the Record]] | *[[Use the Information#Relevance_of_the_Record|Relevance of the Record]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Category_of_the_Record|Category of the Record]] | *[[Use the Information#Category_of_the_Record|Category of the Record]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Format_of_the_Record|Format of the Record]] | *[[Use the Information#Format_of_the_Record|Format of the Record]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Nature_of_the_Information|Nature of the | *[[Use the Information#Nature_of_the_Information|Nature of the Informatio[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Directness_of_the_Evidence|Directness of the | *[[Use the Information#Directness_of_the_Evidence|Directness of the Evidenc[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Consistency_and_Clarity_of_the_Facts|Consistency and Clarity of the | *[[Use the Information#Consistency_and_Clarity_of_the_Facts|Consistency and Clarity of the Fact[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] | ||
*[[Use the Information#Likelihood_of_Events|Likelihood of | *[[Use the Information#Likelihood_of_Events|Likelihood of Event[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] | ||
== Explain the problem and its resolution == | == Explain the problem and its resolution == | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Research_Analysi[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] [[Category:Beginner[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] [[Category:Research_Proces[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] [[Category:Use_the_Informatio[[Category:Evaluating evidence]]] | ||