Genealogical Systematics

IF 0.8 Q3 ETHNIC STUDIES
Genealogy Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI:10.3390/genealogy7010011
A. Kluge
{"title":"Genealogical Systematics","authors":"A. Kluge","doi":"10.3390/genealogy7010011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genealogical research usually begins with the discovery of affinity among individual humans. Such kinship is induced by direct observation, as well as by hearsay (indirect observation) that can be independently confirmed. Those who want to continue investigating a case history after the observational mode of fact-finding is no longer sustainable have no other choice than to switch to the discovery of consanguineous relationships. This involves a paradigm shift, where investigation dramatically changes from observation to inference, from inductive to deductive reasoning. Individuation is important in characterizing the personhood of an individual, but those same facts are of little empirical value in establishing the unification of a family. In addition, genealogists rely on marriage as an observable source of evidence for unification. However, this extrapolation is not completely convincing because marriage does not take into account the uncertainty of paternity. Individual parents usually descend from different parts of family history, which suggests genealogists should evaluate cultural factors responsible for non-random mating in attempting to infer consanguinity. For example, there is the incest taboo, a cultural convention which addresses the abnormal genetic consequences of inbreeding. Other non-random mating factors of a more general nature may also be identified in the unification of genetically different individuals. Here, for example, causality is expected in cultural principles that are of a cohesive and integrative nature. Those kinds of evidence may determine an unmarried pair’s earliest engagement and may also be responsible for the origin and maintenance of the marriage relationship, even throughout post-reproductive life. Lastly, current genealogical research is severely infected with confirmation bias, and from which it must be protected if it is to achieve the status of a scientific discipline. Critical rationalism provides a solution to that kind of problem. It is with remediation in mind, as it applies to all of the aforementioned issues, that genealogical systematics is characterized.","PeriodicalId":73139,"journal":{"name":"Genealogy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genealogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy7010011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Genealogical research usually begins with the discovery of affinity among individual humans. Such kinship is induced by direct observation, as well as by hearsay (indirect observation) that can be independently confirmed. Those who want to continue investigating a case history after the observational mode of fact-finding is no longer sustainable have no other choice than to switch to the discovery of consanguineous relationships. This involves a paradigm shift, where investigation dramatically changes from observation to inference, from inductive to deductive reasoning. Individuation is important in characterizing the personhood of an individual, but those same facts are of little empirical value in establishing the unification of a family. In addition, genealogists rely on marriage as an observable source of evidence for unification. However, this extrapolation is not completely convincing because marriage does not take into account the uncertainty of paternity. Individual parents usually descend from different parts of family history, which suggests genealogists should evaluate cultural factors responsible for non-random mating in attempting to infer consanguinity. For example, there is the incest taboo, a cultural convention which addresses the abnormal genetic consequences of inbreeding. Other non-random mating factors of a more general nature may also be identified in the unification of genetically different individuals. Here, for example, causality is expected in cultural principles that are of a cohesive and integrative nature. Those kinds of evidence may determine an unmarried pair’s earliest engagement and may also be responsible for the origin and maintenance of the marriage relationship, even throughout post-reproductive life. Lastly, current genealogical research is severely infected with confirmation bias, and from which it must be protected if it is to achieve the status of a scientific discipline. Critical rationalism provides a solution to that kind of problem. It is with remediation in mind, as it applies to all of the aforementioned issues, that genealogical systematics is characterized.
系谱系统学
家谱研究通常始于发现人类个体之间的亲缘关系。这种亲缘关系是由直接观察和可以独立证实的道听途说(间接观察)引起的。那些想在事实调查的观察模式不再可持续后继续调查病例史的人别无选择,只能转向发现血缘关系。这涉及到范式的转变,调查从观察到推理,从归纳推理到演绎推理,都发生了巨大的变化。个体化在表征个人的人格方面很重要,但这些事实在建立家庭统一方面几乎没有经验价值。此外,家谱学家将婚姻作为统一的可观察的证据来源。然而,这种推断并不完全令人信服,因为婚姻没有考虑到父亲身份的不确定性。个体父母通常来自家族历史的不同部分,这表明系谱学家在试图推断血缘关系时应该评估导致非随机交配的文化因素。例如,有乱伦禁忌,这是一种文化习俗,旨在解决近亲繁殖的异常遗传后果。在基因不同的个体的统一中,也可以识别出其他更普遍性质的非随机交配因素。例如,在这里,因果关系被期望在具有凝聚力和综合性的文化原则中。这些证据可能决定未婚伴侣最早订婚的时间,也可能对婚姻关系的起源和维持负责,甚至在整个生育后的生活中也是如此。最后,当前的系谱研究严重带有确认偏见,如果要达到科学学科的地位,就必须保护它不受这种偏见的影响。批判理性主义为这类问题提供了解决方案。正是考虑到补救,因为它适用于上述所有问题,谱系系统学才具有特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信