Evidence vs. Proof<\/h3>\n
Therefore when a researcher says they have found evidence of something, they are saying they have found a tentative answer to a question. This is not proof! It may be part of a proof argument, but evidence is not proof. There are five core genealogical standards research must reach in order for evidence to be considered proof, which we will discuss in greater detail another time. For now, we will focus on evidence.<\/p>\n
Direct evidence<\/h3>\n
Direct evidence is a clear statement. If John Johnson\u2019s death certificate provides the maiden name of the deceased\u2019s mother as \u201cMary Smith,\u201d that is direct evidence that her maiden name was Smith. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it answers the question \u201cWhat was the mother\u2019s maiden name\u201d in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n
Indirect evidence<\/h3>\n
Indirect evidence answers questions more circumspectly. For example if there was no maiden name given for John Johnson\u2019s mother on his death certificate, but a passport application for John\u2019s sister Mary Johnson contained their mother\u2019s maiden name, the passport application would be indirect evidence of John\u2019s mother\u2019s name. It would be direct evidence of Mary\u2019s mother\u2019s name and indirect evidence of John\u2019s mother. (Why not direct evidence? Because there is the possibility that they were step siblings. It\u2019s not directly given as information pertaining to him. It was information pertaining to his sister, Mary.)<\/p>\n
Negative evidence<\/h3>\n
Negative evidence answers the research question with \u201cno.\u201d In the case of John Johnson, his death certificate with mother\u2019s maiden name \u201cMary Smith\u201d could be negative evidence of a prior hypothesis that her maiden name had been Jones. (This simplified example needs a caveat: to meet the standard of proof, it should be demonstrated that Mary had never<\/em> been named Mary Jones, that Mary Smith was neither a mistake nor a name from a previous marriage.)<\/p>\n With this understanding of genealogical evidence, RootsFinder approaches family history with a new, evidence-based paradigm. We shine the spotlight on sources to see what information they contain to provide direct, indirect, or negative evidence. Some important tools include:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1. The web clipper and \u201cAdd Event\u201d dialog <\/p>\n 2.The Timeline <\/p>\n 3.The Evidence Analysis Report <\/p>\n We\u2019ll talk more about these tools, evidence-based genealogy, and the Genealogical Proof Standard in later posts, but for now we want to hear your thoughts! Please let us know in the comments if you think RootsFinder\u2019s evidence-based paradigm and supporting tools are helpful, or if there are other tools you\u2019d like to see us develop.<\/p>\nRootsFinder\u2019s approach to evidence-based genealogy<\/h2>\n
\nThe RootsFinder web clipper and \u201cAdd Event\u201d dialog gather all information contained in a source at once. To do this, we begin with a primary person the record is about, then add all the events and relationships mentioned in the source.<\/p>\n![\"RootsFinder's](\"https:\/\/www.rootsfinder.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/add-item-dialog-with-information-1024x541.jpg\")
\nEvents in a person\u2019s timeline can be expanded or collapsed to display the information contained in a source. We show all the information for all people mentioned, along with notes, transcriptions, and images all in the same place. This makes analyzing the information much easier.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.rootsfinder.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/obituary-expanded-1024x1020.jpg\")
\nThe Evidence Analysis Report puts sources side by side to show what information they provide compared to one another. This makes correlating and analyzing information much easier because it allows you to see how information changed over time. It gives you an easier way resolve conflicting evidence because you\u2019re able to directly correlate the sources.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.rootsfinder.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/evidence-analysis2-1024x532.jpg\")