LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE GENEALOGICAL PROOF STANDARD

In the first two parts of this series, Phil Isherwood discussed what we, as genealogists, mean by sources, information and evidence. This month, Phill will be reflecting on ‘proof ’ and scruitinising the research aid that is the Genealogical Proof Standard

In part 1 (FT September), we identified the three types of ‘sources’ and three types of ‘information’. In part 2 (FT October), we did a deep dive into ‘evidence’, defining exactly what we mean by it and describing the three different types of genealogical evidence.

This month it’s the turn of proof:

• What is it?

• Is there just one valid definition of proof or are there many?

• How do we decide when an accumulation of evidence reaches a threshold that we can reliably call proof?

• How can we assess whether other researchers’ conclusions qualify as sufficiently proven?

A definition of proof

How do we define what ‘proof ’ means in genealogical terms? Let’s start with a dictionary definition:

‘A fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true.’

Cambridge Dictionary. URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary. english/proof, accessed 5th March 2023.

That’s good but it isn’t specific to family history research. I searched online across all sorts of organisations looking for a formal definition of genealogical proof. The only organisation I found which offers a definition is the US-based Board of Certification for Genealogists (BCG):

‘A documented statement, summary, or argument that explains or shows why a conclusion is proved; also, a description of a genealogical conclusion that is acceptable because it meets the Genealogical Proof Standard’s five components.’

Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, Second Edition, 2019, pp.82-83.

It may be specific to genealogy, but it isn’t written in plain English. I’m left confused and frustrated by the circumlocutions used by the BCG. I think their book, Genealogy Standards, is important for genealogists everywhere, but it’s written in the style of a law textbook – there’s barely a paragraph of plain English in it. This is a shame as it has a great deal to say about best-practice approaches to family history research.