Today's substantive discussion illustrates points Dr. Jones makes in Chapter 2. Ol' Myrt here has just reviewed our recorded session together with the comments in the Community posted directly under the embedded video viewer found there. This empowering study group session is much better for my learning process than the typical genealogy lecture format. I need interaction to drill down to the essence of a thought before I can decide whether to incorporate that info into my system or reject it as either too radical or something I just don't understand.
SYLLABUS: Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, Virginia: National Genealogical Society, 2013). [Book available from the publisher at http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/mastering_genealogical_proof , also available in Kindle format through Amazon.com]
Dr. Jones is a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists. That society's journal includes a brief review(1) of Mastering Genealogical Proof comparing the book to fellow Fellow Robert Charles Anderson's Elements of Genealogical Analysis. Reviewer David L. Green, FASG considers both titles essential to a genealogist's bookshelf but has sharp criticism for Dr. Jones referring to his own articles published in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, the journal co-edited by Dr. Jones himself.
To this I'd respond we speak best using examples of our own work. I'd also state it's unclear if the publisher, NGS, required most examples and additional reading to be found among NGS resources.
SURE you can VIEW the archived Hangout on Air here, but why not head on over to DearMYRTLE's Genealogy Community on Google+ where you may VIEW and COMMENT. That way you could put Myrt's following comments in context, and add a few of your own: http://bit.ly/MyrtsPrevious
To , a previous MGP Study Group panelist, Ol' Myrt here writes"I agree it IS valuable to study this again. It's like peeling back layers of an onion. Thankful for our panelists and participants' candor. It's by facing fears and unknowns together that we move forward. Ideas from multiple viewpoints make it easier for me to understand distinctions mentioned in Dr. Jones' book. "
Traditional historical research and citation practices aren't detailed enough for proving genealogical questions, are they? This is a mind shift not unlike the difference between crocheting and knitting a pair of wool socks. We use some similar (yarn) and some different components (2 types of needles) to make the socks. The process (basic crochet vs knit stitch) is slightly different. And the final product (written conclusion) is socks."
To , a MGP2 Study Group panelist, Ol' Myrt here writes "A microfilm or microfiche view of the original record group of say wills, is a more reliable representation of an original will than say a single blog post with images of the same will because it's possible the image in the blog could have been altered."
To current panelist , Ol' Myrt here writes "Multiple "documents" may have information items (correct or incorrect) from the same informant. For instance family info on a death certificate, an obituary and a funeral card. In that case we must let the number of sources from the same informant outweigh other evidence. Does this make sense?"
Hangouts: Pay what you want. So it's simple. If you value the work Ol' Myrt, +Cousin Russ and our beloved panelists do week in and week out on your behalf, please:
Check the GeneaWebinars Calendar for exact dates of DearMYRTLE study groups and Hangouts on Air, in addition to over 200 hours of online genealogy classes, webinars and tweetchats from other hosts and presenters in the next 12 months.
Your friend in genealogy.
G+ DearMYRTLE Community
Second Life: Clarise Beaumont
(1) Green, David L., untitled book review, The American Genealogist, (2014) Vol 87 No 1, 77-79.