The Gum Drop Cookie recipe we mentioned recently contained coconut as an ingredient. The reference to coconut reminded me of evidence when constructing a genealogical argument.
Genealogists research records to obtain information about a problem. Sometimes the information contained in the records directly addresses the problem. Sometimes the information indirectly addresses the problem. Sometimes information supports our conclusion and sometimes it conflicts it. All relevant records should be referenced in any discussion of the problem and the information they contain should be examined. We might not choose to use every piece of information from every record to make our case, particularly if we have numerous records stating the same thing. In this case, we may choose to mainly include those contemporary-to-the-event records with information contained by informants who had first-hand knowledge of the information and who are considered to have been reliable informants.
We should put that information together in such a way that our reasoning can be understood clearly and that our case is made.
Personally I think we should also discuss information that seems to be reliable and that contradicts our conclusion–if only to clearly show why we believe that information to be flawed or unreliable in some way. Our discussion of these items indicates that we have not ignored the information, but that we have in fact examined and have reasons (which we clearly state) as to why we think the information is not correct.
But there may be details we uncover that aren’t really required to make our case and that don’t contradict it either. It’s usually best to leave those out–like some would choose to do with the coconut in the Gum Drop Cookie Recipe. The cookie will still bake up properly.
No responses yet