APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1199608372


From: "Paul K. Graham" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] genealogy definitions
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 03:32:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <083e01c85038$5183c540$2101a8c0@CEB>


Carolyn,

It's not necessarily about the tools and methods -- it's about the ultimate
application.

Doing "forensic" science is doing science for the purpose of establishing
facts and/or evidence for a court of law. Doing "forensic" genealogy is
doing genealogy for the purpose of establishing facts and/or evidence for a
court of law.

Now, that is the narrow definition. Broader definitions of "forensic" offer
"public discussion" and "argumentation" and other words as a substitute for
"court of law." In those broader cases, I do not think there would be a
difference between "genealogy" and "forensic genealogy." I do, however,
belive that it would be problematic for everyone to start calling themselves
"forensic genealogists" just because they are providing evidence that is
appropriate for public discussion. That would be a serious muddying of the
waters.

My opinion is that anyone claiming to do "forensic genealogy" should be
doing work for the purpose of providing evidence in a legal setting. To use
a broader definition is to include all genealogists, at which time the use
of the word will be pointless.

Paul K. Graham
Atlanta, Georgia

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:47 AM
To: Carolyn Ybarra;
Subject: Re: [APG] genealogy definitions

I totally agree with this. I keep picturing a forensic genealogist with her
kit of tools, collecting physical evidence to analyze and evaluate back in
her lab, in order to reach a conclusion of probable validity--at least until
further evidence comes to light. Kinda sounds like "genealogist" and
"forensic genealogist" are the same thing. What gives? What tools and
methods does a forensic genealogist use that a plain genealogist doesn't
use?

Puzzled, Carolyn Earle Billingsley

This thread: