03 February 2021

Weighing genealogical proof as facts or truth

I love taking the plastic off my new edition of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ) and diving into the mysteries that unfold in the presented research. I admit that this is not for everyone. I like to learn about strategies that others use to find information or facts about those they are researching. I love the maps, graphs and charts the authors use to help convey information. I also love learning about history and the unique lives that our predecessors have lived. I also think it is intimidating to see the evidence of the reasonably exhaustive searches that genealogists go through to find information that help to paint the picture of facts about the person they are researching.

NGSQ December 2020

The Editor’s Corner for the December 2020[1] publication about Claims and Assertions has caused me to think about the different types of facts we use to prove our theories about our research. At the head of the editorial, they quote Friedrich Nietzche “Facts do not exist, only interpretations[2].”

The editors, Nancy A. Peters and Allen R. Peterson, use examples from an article in the issue to show how a genealogical conclusion was made based on compiled family members’ claims. These claims were later proved false using deeds and probate records that may not have been available to the original researcher. They also explain that the person in question was deliberately obscuring his identity, but evidence proves his true identity.

I know in my own experience that relying on family members’ claims led to a brick wall and not until I broadened my research did I find the ancestor. I also found that my relative had changed his identity and left behind a wife and children, with no sign of divorce. In later records this first wife listed herself as a widow. I can draw conclusions about this ancestor, but I am not sure I still know all of the facts or truth about him.

The NGSQ editorial makes a good point and to a certain extent I agree. However,  I think I disagree with Nietzche and the use of his quote in the editorial. I am not convinced that conclusions and facts are always the same.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

Facts and Truth

Nietche’s quote, “facts do not exist, only interpretations,” is reflected in our current politically charged world. Facts are rooted in truth. I know that many people say that truth is subjective but there are facts and truths that exist. It is sad in modern society I need to delineate between facts and actual facts or truth and actual truth. We are all born is a fact and we all die is a fact. Where we were born or may die may not be known but can be proved. You cannot interpret being born.

It is both the truth and a fact that I was born in Provo, Utah. Not only do I have a certificate of birth and eyewitness accounts but the facts that I lived in Provo, attended schools there, and have relatives who lived and are still living there all collaborate that I was born in Provo.

It is a fact that my children were all born in Ogden, Utah. It is true they were all born in Mckay-Dee Hospital, but it is a fact that they were not all born in the same hospital. Over time McKay-Dee Hospital has been in three different locations along Harrison Boulevard in Ogden. In March of 2002, the newest facility was opened about six blocks south of the previous location. My wife and our three oldest children were all born in the same older building, but our youngest three children were all born in the newer building.

Relativism

Relativism seems like a word that fits well within the world of genealogy and family history.  However, the theory has much less to do with relatives than it does to a belief. The philosophy of relativism holds that each person is free to choose for themselves what is truth or fact, that their point of view or standpoint can alter the way facts or truth are seen or to be believed. This myopic viewpoint lacks intellectual insight and relies more on emotion or feelings than accuracy and verity.

Over the last few years, I have noticed my children picking up a new conversational terminology. I have even caught myself saying it a few times. When I was younger, I would say things like, “I think that the sky is bluer today,” or “I think the snow is deeper this year.” With the new terminology I hear them say, “I feel like the snow is deeper this year,” or “it feels like he was born earlier in the year.” This difference in terminology seems small at first but the underlying emotion of the thought reflects the relativism that is pervasive in our modern culture.

Thinking based on emotion has led to many social issues that blur truth and fact and could affect our field of genealogy. People now feel their gender is different than a biological truth of fact. Others even feel that gender is not real but a construct of thought. Marriage has gone from an institution to a piece of paper. A two-parent household is considered by some as a form of white privilege instead of a societal norm. Even societal norms feel wrong so they must not be true.

I fear the loss of truth and fact if relativism becomes as common in family history and genealogy as it is in politics and morality.


Genealogical Proof Standard

Scholars and professionals in genealogy use proof to draw conclusions[3]. This has been standardized using five conditions. A reasonably exhaustive search, complete citations, analysis and correlation of data, resolution of conflicts, and a written proof summary or conclusion.

Even the most technical and skilled proof summary is more of a probability than truth. The proof can contain facts and truths, but the result is a theory or conclusion. Truth and facts do not change but the theory or proof can. Proof is not truth or fact; proof is a standard of reliability and quality of the conclusion drawn.

Because of the analysis and correlations step of the genealogical proof standard I can see an avenue for relativism to creep into proof. If we project the emotions of relativism of the modern day into the analysis of sources, information and evidence of the past our proof summaries and conclusions will become even less probable and farther from fact or the truth.

This brings us back to the editorial, they expertly discuss genealogical conclusions, proof standards, and examples, however I think the Nietzsche quote that framed the article would have been more truthful or factual if it read, “genealogical conclusions do not exist, only interpretations.” Unless we add an additional standard of proof, may we all hold truth and fact with a higher regard than feelings or emotion.

 


[1] Nancy A. Peters and Allen R. Peterson, “Editors’ Corner,” in National Genealogical Society Quarterly (Boston, MA), December 2020, Vol. 108, no. 4, p. 243.

[2] NGSQ citing Friedrich Nietzche in Walter Kaufmann, ed. and transl., The Portable Nietzche (1954; reprint, New York: Viking Press, 1988), p. 458.

[3] Mills, Elizabeth Shown, Evidence Explained: Citing Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2017), p. 19.

No comments:

Post a Comment