META: Absence of Evidence

META discussion of theory -- names not needed, no lookups needed.

All right, let's say, just for the sake of having somewhere to
start, that Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

At what stage can one legitimately claim that absence of evidence is
proof of the absence of proof?

Dave Hinz...

My brain hurts. I've read that 4 times and it's not helping.

I mean, at what stage are we allowed to be reasonable about it?

How many long-shots add up to enough? When you're down to begging

Dave Hinz...

More than you'd think. I traced a line of one Norwegian fellow back
maybe a dozen generations (easy over there, winters are long and
they're good record keepers). Why? Because he had the right name,
lived in the right place, had the right wife (I thought), was on the
right census, was the right age, went to the right church....slam
dunk, right? Nope. He'd moved there from across the lake, when my
ancestor was busy doing other things yet to be determined. So when
I finally found the conflicting information and it was solid, I had
to detach him from my tree. Kept the info though with a note of
"not mine and here's how I know this" so someone generations from
now knows I've seen him and doesn't think they've discovered
something new that has already been disproven.

(that line ended up getting used by someone else, I recognized a
name from it in someone's query and was able to hand them a whole
chunk of completed, cited, annotated tree. They were pleased.)

total strangers to let you paw through their attic just in case
their ancestor (a) kept a diary (b) knew your ancestor and (c)
mentioned your ancestor's parents in their diary -- is absence of
proof good enough to prove there's no evidence? Is 35 years of
personal searching, plus another 52 years combined efforts of two
lawyers, two professional genealogists and four other interested
family members enough to say "mama-said" is as good as it gets
proof-wise?

Dave Hinz...

Best Available Evidence. Technically, I don't have primary
documentation for my own place and date of birth, but given that my
mom was there, "momma said" is good enough in this case. If that's
all that's available, enter it and note the surety of the source in
the notes.

Dave Hinz

Celia Mitschelen...

Sometimes you can't even trust "momma".

I was born on the 13th according to "momma" and a birth certificate.
As a kid I thought it would be great if I was born on Friday the
13th and could celebrate my 13th birthday with 13 friends on Friday
the 13th. When I asked "Momma" she said, "No you were born on a
Thursday."

So much for my great plans. Several years ago when I downloaded the
great DAYS calendar program I decided to check it out. I found I
WAS born on Friday the 13th . . . . . . . . or was it Thursday the
12th, or did she just not want to host a party for 13 giggling
girls?

Celia

"Celia Mitschelen"

Dave Hinz

Steve Hayes...

That's why, when assigning surety numbers in Legacy, I give a
mother's statement of the date of birth of her child a level of 3,
because she was there. Any evidence on a certificate is likely to
be derived from what she said anyway.

Cheryl

singhals

Eagle...

Peter J Seymour...

Well, sooner or later you may conclude that what evidence you have
is "good enough". You just have to remember that it is not
absolutely proven and you might in future in the light of new
evidence have to change your mind. I suppose you are really asking
how one can judge that the "good enough" point has been reached.
There is no simple answer to that (sorry), although other replies
might elaborate some ideas.

Peter

Peter J Seymour

If there is no proof any conclusion is permanent (as in a woman's
hairdo).

I can prove my line from 1650 to 1790 (until someone turns up proof
that does not currently exist and probably never existed).

I merely note links which are only proven logically.

Hugh

Eagle@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)