Genealogical fallacies in logic

When I was in high school I took a course called “Theory of Knowledge.” I may have enjoyed this course more than any other course I had ever taken up to that point and since (right up until I took Course 4 at the Institute of Genealogy and Historical Research).

One of the course units dealt with classical logic, and logical fallacies. I recently found a handout on “Logical Fallacies” that I received in the course. Sadly I cannot produce a “full and accurate” citation to this handout, as I can’t remember details from nearly twenty years ago.

Much of scholarly genealogical research involves the use of logic–deductive and inductive reasoning. Many of the errors that occur in research similarly result in fallacies of logic. I would like to discuss the most common fallacies, as described on this twenty-year-old high school handout, here.

First the definition of a fallacy:

Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning or in an argument. As such they are not rational in the true sense of the word. Most people who commit fallacies do so out of carelessness or haste. Many people who use fallacies are trying to side-step pure reasoning and manipulate others through psychological techniques. There are hundreds of different fallacies, but a few are listed below:

Not only does this definition address fallacies in a simplified way, it also demonstrates that many of the most common genealogical mistakes are directly caused by fallacies. The small selection of fallacies that I have extracted from the handout for this blog post below further demonstrate this connection between genealogical error and poor reasoning:

1. Hasty generalization – Drawing a conclusion (inference) on insufficient evidence.

2. Dicto simpliciter – Not taking genuine exceptions into account.

. . .

5. Circular reasoning – Going around in a circle – using the premise as the conclusion and vice versa – sometimes called “begging the question.”

6. False cause – supposing that two things that are connected by coincidence somehow cause each other.

. . .

8. Ad ignorantium – drawing a conclusion with no evidence one way or the other.

. . .

11. Appeal to authority – trying to get your position accepted because an authority says so when the authority is irrelevant to the issue.

12. Composition – Assuming what is true of the parts is true of the whole and vice – versa – what is true of the whole is true of the parts.

To demonstrate some of these fallacies, let us examine a few scenarios a genealogist might come across:

1. Hasty Generalization. Susan Smith, age 12 years, appears in the 1860 federal census in the household of Richard Smith, age 36 years. The fallacious conclusion would be that Susan Smith is the daughter of Richard Smith, with no further evidence to support it. The 1860 federal census does not provide family relationships, so any conclusion involving family relationships based on this evidence constitutes a fallacious argument.

2. Dicto simpliciter. Alexander Brown, an African American man, appears in the 1870 federal census in Mississippi. A genealogist falling prey to this fallacy would not even look for Alexander in the 1860 federal census, assuming that he was enslaved until the Civil War. The presence of free people of color in Mississippi (though relatively few) constitute “genuine exceptions.” The possibility that Alexander Brown was free in 1860–perhaps in another locality, migrating as a soldier during the War itself–exists.

8. Ad ignorantium. This fallacy is probably the most rampant in genealogy. Suppose family tradition says that your great-grandfather James Lee was related to Robert E. Lee. No connection is found. Or you great-great-grandmother Beatrice Jones was a “full-blooded American Indian.” Again, no evidence suggests this conclusion. Believing what you want to believe despite a lack of evidence is this fallacy in a nutshell.

11. Appeal to authority. A published family history says that William Mulliken came from  West Virginia. The fallacious conclusion would accept this statement as gospel, without further research. Just because it’s in print–even if the author is a well-respected authority–doesn’t mean its true.

We are all guilty of nearly all of these fallacies at one point or another in our career.

Do you have any other examples that immediately come to mind?

If you would like to cite this post:

Michael Hait, CG, “Genealogical fallacies in logic,”Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 19 December 2012 (https://michaelhait.wordpress.com : accessed [access date]). [Please also feel free to include a hyperlink to the specific article if you are citing this post in an online forum.]

The most important thing you can ever prove

This blog has spent a lot of time discussing the Genealogical Proof Standard, especially focusing on the use and analysis of multiple documents.

The most important fact that you can ever prove—the basis of all of our research—is the identity of the subject of each record. When you find a marriage record for John Smith, how do you know it is the same John Smith that you are looking for? No matter how unique you believe a name is, you still have to prove that the record actually pertains to the subject of your research.

Several situations make this determination extremely important:

Same name, same place, same time. This is the most common issue of identity. One of my ancestors, Henry Hait, was one of three men named Henry Hait or Henry Hoyt living in Stamford, Connecticut, during his lifetime. Learning about my Henry involved being sure that the Henry Hait in each individual record I found was mine, and not some other one. This dilemma is so rampant that it is even commonly called the “same name” trap.

Same name, same age, same place, different times. I believe that this situation may have resulted in more inaccurate family trees than even the more well-known trap mentioned above. Imagine that a man named George Burgess (fictional name) shows up in records from his birth in 1830 through early adulthood in 1850, all in the context of his immediate family. Then another man named George Burgess born around 1830 shows up in records in the same jurisdiction from his marriage in 1851 through his death in 1900. The two men never show up in the same records at the same time. If you don’t take the time to thoroughly examine all available evidence, it is easy to conclude that all of the records pertain to the same George Burgess. Never mind that the reality is that the younger George Burgess—with the rest of the family—moved out west, the year before the older George Burgess moved into town from the next county over. Regardless of which George Burgess you are researching, falling prey to this trap would create an inaccurate family history.

Same name, different place, different time. I call this the “Shaky Leaf” problem. No serious genealogist should ever fall for this one. Just because a shaky leaf (or any other “intelligent” automatic search feature) tells you that a family tree has someone with the same name, doesn’t mean that you should attach it to the tree. (But if you are reading this blog, you probably already know this.)

How do you establish identity?

Each record should contain both internal and external clues as to the identity of the subject. To prove identity, you can use these clues with clues in other records to form a solid body of evidence.

Internal clues are those attributes about the subject that tell you more about their lives: their age, wife’s name and age, children’s names and ages, occupation, birthplace, religious affiliation, etc.

In a recent case, for example, I was searching for a man named Joseph Adams. I was able to reconstruct his immediate family based on later records of his children in adulthood, but had no information about him. Using the ages of his children, I was able to identify his 1830 federal census record among the records of other men of the same name.

External clues are those attributes about the world around the subject that tell you more about them: their neighbors and neighborhood.

Once I had identified Joseph Adams in the 1830 federal census, I proceeded to look for all of his neighbors in the 1830 city directory. Their addresses pointed me to the precise neighborhood that Joseph lived in. Using a map, this allowed me to identify the correct Joseph in that same city directory, which provided his street address and occupation. This then allowed me to locate the correct Joseph in earlier and later city directories. These facts about Joseph’s life begin to form a portrait of the man that will help in resolving identity issues in other records.

Another case study that I am currently revising for possible future publication in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly involves the second problem described above. Without giving away too much detail, I can describe the problem here.

• A man (“TB2”) lived in Baltimore County by 1783 and died there in 1836. Federal census records prior to his death estimate a date of birth between 1740 and 1750.
• Another man (“TB1”) lived in Baltimore County by the 1740s, and recorded the births of his children in one of the three parishes that covered then-Baltimore County—including a son named “TB2” born in 1747.

The full case study not only disproves that TB2 was the son of TB1, but uses other attributes of TB2’s life to identify TB2’s parents and grandparents. No direct evidence connects TB2 to his other family members. It is only by using the internal and external clues in all of the records of both TB1 and TB2 that the true relationships are revealed.

If you would like to cite this post:

Michael Hait, CG, “The most important thing you can ever prove,”Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 18 December 2012 (https://michaelhait.wordpress.com : accessed [access date]). [Please also feel free to include a hyperlink to the specific article if you are citing this post in an online forum.]

Association of Professional Genealogists Board of Directors election results

The Association of Professional Genealogists today released the following announcement:

Association of Professional Genealogists Unveils Election Results

Ten Board Members and Two Nominating Committee Members Join to Support World’s Largest Professional Organization for Genealogy

WESTMINSTER, Colo., November 19, 2012—Today, the Association of Professional Genealogists (APG^®) unveiled the results of its 2012 election of new board members and two nominating committee members. APG membership elected 10 board members for two-year terms, 2013–2014. Two nominating committee members were chosen for the 2013 term. The newly-elected board members include:

Region 1 – West: Sheri Fenley (California) is a professional genealogist and historical researcher from Stockton, California. She is the editor of the San Joaquin Genealogical Society’s newsletter and author of the popular blog The Educated Genealogist, which was voted as one of Family Tree Magazine’s Top 40 Blogs. Beverly Rice, CG, (Oregon) is a teacher and lecturer in historical and genealogical topics. As well as serving on the APG Board, Beverly has held office as secretary and treasurer. She currently works on the Professional Development and Redistribution committees.

Region 2 – Midwest: Harold Henderson, CG, (Indiana) is a professional genealogist and writer who has authored numerous books and articles. He serves as moderator of the Transitional Genealogists Forum, on the publicity committee for the 2013 Federation of Genealogical Societies national conference, and writes the Midwest Microhistory blog. Kelvin Meyers (Texas) is a fifth generation Texan and, for the past 25 years, a professional genealogist and speaker. He is a former president of the Lone Star Chapter of APG and serves on the board of the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy

Region 3 – Southeast: Melanie Holtz, CG, (North Carolina) is a full-time professional genealogist with 18 years of experience within the genealogy community. She has served APG in many capacities and currently works on the APG Professional Development Committee and is vice president and director of programs for the North Carolina Chapter of APG. Craig Roberts Scott, CG, (North Carolina) is a well-known genealogy educator, author of 11 books and numerous articles, and is owner of Heritage Books, Inc. A Grahame T. Smallwood Award recipient, Craig has been active in APG since he joined, holding office and serving on the APG Board and on numerous committees. He played an instrumental role in the formation of the Virtual APG chapter in Second Life.

Region 4 – Northeast: Diane Gravel, CG, (New Hampshire) is a professional genealogist and lecturer with nearly 20 years professional experience. She has been very active in APG, serving on the board, several committees, and as a past president of the New England Chapter of APG. She is vice president of the New Hampshire Society of Genealogists, and is co-editor of its New Hampshire Families in 1790 project. Deborah Hooper (Delaware) has been a professional genealogist for the past five years and is the editor of the ProGen Study Group newsletter. She completed the Boston University Genealogical Research Program and was the 2011 Walter Lee Sheppard Jr. prize winner, an award presented to exceptional students in the Advanced Methodology track at Samford University’s Institute of Genealogy and Historical Research.

International Region 5A:  Bruce Durie, PhD FSAScot FCollT FIGRS FHEA OLJ, (Scotland) has been a working genealogist for almost 20 years. He started and directed the Genealogical Studies Programme at the University of Strathclyde and now teaches genealogy at the Universities of Edinburgh and Dundee. He has authored more than 25 books on family and local history. He is also known for his BBC Radio series, “Digging up Your Roots.”

International Region 5C: Jan Gow, QSM, FSG (New Zealand) is a past APG Board member and longtime member of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists, having served in many offices and capacities. She has been honored with several awards, including the Australasian Federation of Family History Societies award for meritorious service to Family History and the Queen’s Service Medal in the 2012 New Year’s Honours List for service to genealogy research. She was elected a Fellow of the Society of Genealogists in London in June.

Nominations Committee: Ellen Rohr (Wisconsin) is a professional genealogist and a staff librarian at a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area library. She brings 12 years of project management and leadership experience in the information technology field. She lectures on genealogy topics and maintains several genealogy websites. Ellen serves on the board of the Global Alliance of Genealogy Professionals. Teresa Steinkamp McMillin, CG, (Illinois) is a professional genealogist specializing in German-American and Midwest research, as well as reading German script. She is a grader for the National Genealogical Society’s Home Study Course and serves as co-president and webmaster of the Northwest Suburban Council of Genealogists in Mount Prospect, Illinois.

“Congratulations to our new and returning board members,” said APG President, Kenyatta D. Berry. “We look forward to their ideas and support in building this growing organization. We also thank our new committee members and our retiring board members for their service.”

Retiring from the board are:

Amy E. K. Arner

Diane Giannini, CG

Donald W. Moore, CG

Eileen O’Duill, CG

Mary Penner

Carole Riley, FHS

Debbie Parker Wayne, CG

About the Association of Professional Genealogists

The Association of Professional Genealogists (www.apgen.org), established in 1979, represents more than 2,600 genealogists, librarians, writers, editors, historians, instructors, booksellers, publishers, and others involved in genealogy-related businesses. APG encourages genealogical excellence, ethical practice, mentoring, and education. The organization also supports the preservation and accessibility of records useful to the fields of genealogy and history. Its members represent all fifty states, Canada, and thirty other countries. APG is active on LinkedIn, Twitter (www.twitter.com/apggenealogy) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/AssociationofProfessionalGenealogists).

 

Media Contacts:

Kathleen W. Hinckley, CG

Executive Director
Association of Professional Genealogists
P.O. Box 350998, Westminster, CO 80035-0998
Phone: +1-303-465-6980, fax: +1-303-456-8825

email: admin@apgen.org

 

Corey Oiesen

Communications Officer

Association of Professional Genealogists

email: corey@genealogyheroes.com

###

APG is a registered trademark of the Association of Professional Genealogists. All other trade and service marks are property of their respective owners.

Free webinar on beginning your Civil War research tomorrow

Just a note to remind everyone that I will be presenting a free webinar tomorrow (October 24) at 2pm Eastern through Legacy Family Tree.

My presentation “Your Civil War Ancestors: Beginning Your Research” will discuss how to identify which of your ancestors may have served in the Civil War, and then how to find more information about the soldiers using compiled military service records and pension applications. Both Union and Confederate soldiers will be addressed.

To register for this webinar, visit http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/webinars.asp.

I hope to see you all there!

The “literature search” in the Internet age

Many genealogy guides advise that we should first conduct a literature search when researching a new family. Traditionally, this has meant examining published work. The Internet has changed both the nature of “the literature” and how (or if) we conduct these searches.

Before the Internet,  compiled genealogical work products appeared in self-published books and society journal articles. To a certain extent one might even consider the examination of published queries in society journals as part of the literature search. In this way, researchers could “gather clues” from and build upon the previous research of others.

Another part of the process—especially if researching a family that had not been previously researched and published—was looking for ancestors in published indexes, abstracts, and transcriptions. Some of these were printed in books, others in society journals.

The early days of Internet genealogy (the mid- to late-1990s) reproduced the traditional literature search online. There were a few sites that allowed uploading of GEDCOM files, where researchers could connect through the online publication of their research. The USGenWeb system of sites published genealogy indexes, abstracts, and transcriptions of records. Conducting a literature search then consisted of looking at both print and online sources.

It is now 2012. The nature of what we find online has changed. I recently had a discussion with a fellow genealogist about whether the literature search is still necessary.

To answer this question, we must review the two main reasons for conducting a literature search.

First, we would look at previously-published research. There is a lot of this online now.

As I discussed in an earlier post, we can’t ignore it. On the other hand, a lot of it—especially the Ancestry.com public trees—would not qualify as genealogy. I recently discovered that one of my ancestors, born in the mid-nineteenth century in New York, had been attached as the mother of a woman born in North Carolina in the eighteenth century. At least in the days of printed research, the mistakes were at least generally geographically centered. No “shaking-leaf” mistakes.

So how much of the online trees should we bother to look at?

There are a few wiki-based family tree sites. In theory, the collaborative nature of these sites will make them more likely to be accurate. Many families, however, have only one member-contributor, so there simply is no collaboration. The accuracy is only as good as the researcher.

Nearly every Ancestry.com search will bring at least a few public trees. As already noted, many of these are simply examples of bad—some might say nonexistent—research. One way to find the better research is to look for “Public Stories.” These often contain user-transcribed records or personal memories. The trees that contain them are usually the work of genealogists who are trying to put together a good family tree.

Online trees of course suffer from the same weaknesses and shortcomings as their offline equivalents. Not all researchers have the same level of skill. This is as true now as it ever has been. The only way to know how reliable a published tree is, is to evaluate the evidence. Unfortunately, very few online trees have source citations. Even fewer have proof arguments that explain the reasoning behind the conclusions that have been made.

You can of course contact the creators of most online trees. They may or may not respond. If they do respond, you might be able to ask for source citations (if they have them) or ask them for their reasoning for certain conclusions. This will help in the assessment of the research.

Second, we would find our ancestors in published indexes, etc. The most important aspect of this is to understand what records exactly have been indexed, and obtaining the original source record for the reference. The reason this is important should be self-evident.

Given the focus of this blog on professional research skills, I would also like to address the question from the perspective of a genealogist researching a client project. How much of a literature search is it necessary to conduct?

The Internet has changed every aspect of how we research. Because of Ancestry, FamilySearch, and the hundreds of other websites that have brought them online, we now have direct access to digital image copies of original records. In my opinion, the ease of access to these records makes much of the literature search unnecessary during the beginning stages of our research.

When we have direct access to the original records, why would we waste our clients’ research time looking at online family trees compiled by researchers of questionable skill? As skillful researchers ourselves, we should (presumably) reach the same conclusions based on the same records.

In my opinion, it is also too tempting to accept the conclusions made by previous researchers. For this reason, I generally skip the previous research aspect of the literature search. I prefer to look at the records themselves and form my conclusions based on these records alone. This removes the potential to be biased toward a previous conclusion.

This is not to say that I do not still conduct a literature search. The difference is that I generally do not look at previous research until closer to the end of the project. After I have found the records and reached at least tentative conclusions, I may go back to see how they match up with previous research, to see if I may have missed some crucial element of the subject’s life. If I get stuck on a line, an online family tree might provide me with the clue that gets me past it.

What do you think about the literature search in this age of the Internet? Is it still necessary?

Please leave your comments below.

Building a professional genealogy career

Earlier today, a poster inquired on the Transitional Genealogists Forum mailing list about educational opportunities for building a full-time genealogy career. I posted a fairly lengthy response, and afterwards felt that it might be well-received here as well, slightly edited:

Writing a business plan is essential. I know this is one of the assignments in ProGen, but you have to keep up with it. A business plan should be a “living document.” As you learn things that do and do not work in a practical sense, you should change your business plan to reflect your experience.

Before taking the plunge into full-time genealogy, you should start by taking a few clients on a part-time basis. One of the keys to my success in transitioning genealogy into my full-time career was having an established client base grown over a few years of part-time work. Return/repeat clients and referred clients are a major part of my business.

Consider the resources you have easy access to when advertising your specialties. When I first started, my specialties included upstate (Albany) New York and Connecticut, because that is where my family is from and therefore where the majority of my non-professional experience lay. However, I was only one or two clients in when I realized that I could not remotely research these areas from Maryland in an effective and timely manner. There are certainly a lot more online resources available now than there were in 2005-2006 when I was getting started, but that still would not allow me to examine the original records in New York. So I spent months building a knowledge base in Maryland resources and records–the area where I lived, though I had never done any research there. Even today, though I now live in Delaware, the majority of my research cases are based in Maryland–I’m still only an hour from the Maryland State Archives and go there on a regular basis.

Marketing is not just advertising. Marketing is establishing your business as a brand–that brand being your own professional reputation. The genealogical community is a relatively small world, and the professional genealogy community is far smaller. Every time you write or publish, every time you lecture, and indeed every client report that you send to a client constitutes marketing to a much higher extent than some might believe. Every time you post online, on the TGF list, on the APG members list, on a local genealogy list, on your blog, on a genealogy Facebook page… you get the idea. Building a reputation for research skill and knowledge of records and analysis is not something that you can intentionally set out to do. It is something that grows organically as you work.

You can’t be afraid to take advantage of the networking opportunities available to learn more–that is, don’t be afraid to ask questions, for fear of appearing ignorant or inexperienced. Everyone understands that no one knows everything. Intelligent and thoughtful questions are as respected as intelligent and thoughtful answers.

On genealogy institutes: My first “national” genealogy event was the Institute of Genealogical & Historical Research at Samford University, in 2010. I could never afford to travel for education before then (and actually lost my job a month after registering, so I couldn’t really afford it even at the time I went). My experience that week–not just educational, but also the opportunities for networking that existed and the relationships that were formed over that week–made me vow that no matter what, if I had to move the heavens and earth, I would never again miss IGHR. In 2011, I barely made it by the skin of my teeth, but I moved said heavens and earth, and bought the plane tickets to Birmingham less than a month before the Institute. But I made it, and took Elizabeth Shown Mills’s Advanced Methodology course. Well worth every struggle.

Second, I want to reiterate the importance of meeting people face-to-face. A lot of conversations simply cannot be held effectively by email. There is something to be said for being able to look people in the eye. Relationships formed in person tend to be stronger than those formed online. A lot of professional opportunities arise because of relationships built with other professionals. These opportunities may be as important as or even more important than those built with your own independent ideas and marketing.

And they may be the difference between being successful in your career and being unsuccessful.

 

If you would like to cite this post:

Michael Hait, CG, “Building a professional genealogy career,”Planting the Seeds: Genealogy as a Profession blog, posted 29 September 2012 (https://michaelhait.wordpress.com : accessed [access date]). [Please also feel free to include a hyperlink to the specific article if you are citing this post in an online forum.]

Help keep the Georgia Archives open

I previously reported on the closure of the Georgia Archives, effective 1 November 2012. Since then quite a bit has happened, including the termination of seven of the ten remaining employees, leaving only three employees to service all of the Archives’ functions.

At noon on October 3, the Coalition to Preserve the Georgia Archives and the Friends of the Georgia Archives & History will be leading a rally at the Georgia Capitol Rotunda. It is very important that this rally has a large turnout, in order to truly influence the decision-makers. If you are anywhere near Atlanta, please try to make it to this rally. See the flyer below for more information.

For those of you who cannot make it to Atlanta on October 3, you can still help by signing the petition to keep the Archives open. At the time of this writing, the petition has just under 16,000 supporters. It has been promoted by archivists, historians, genealogists, and librarians in states around the nation. More help is still needed. The petition has a goal of 20,000 signatures. To be sure that our voices are heard, we should try to surpass that goal.

Governor Deal has vowed to keep the Archives open. That was before 70% of the employees lost their jobs. Ironically, he also declared October as “Archives Month.” Hopefully, we are making the Secretary of State reconsider his decision, but so far nothing has changed. We obviously need to do more.

Visit the Friends of the Georgia Archives & History’s website at http://www.fogah.org/ for more actions you can take to help.

Capitol Rally 10-3-12