Genealogy and Science

[JR Olsen]

Ivar, we are not getting anywhere. You are only interested in having a math-based discussion. I have no interest in such a discussion. You do not understand that you limit your abilities by only focusing on math. Re-read all of my postings. Very few mention math.

[Jonas Jonsson]

 

 

I believe that this statement is necessary.....The vast majority of the English words/wordings by Norwegians are understood, but at times it is difficult to understand due to the style used. The Norwegian language (as well as all languages) has its own style. When that style is used with English text, it gives an appearance of words being forced together without any logic. 

 

I quote: 

 

"When statements are made that books/articles/whatever contain "scientific proof" is the focus on math? Do Norwegians depend on math for scientific proof, always?"

 

 

I find it amusing that you criticise the language skills of others when your own writing is appalling. 

Endret April 17, 2014 av Jonas Jonsson

[JR Olsen]

Jonas, I do not understand.

oh, you are that type of person.

By the way, I did not criticize. It was an observation. Now I know why you shy away from posting.

[David Widerberg Howden]

Ivar, once again I suggest your re-read. I did not bring it into focus. The focus on math is owned by you and others.

 

When statements are made that books/articles/whatever contain "scientific proof" is the focus on math? Do Norwegians depend on math for scientific proof, always?

Jonas Jonsson, twice you posted and then deleted. Say what you want.

 

Well Im still a little confused by your postings. It could of course be because the depth in your writing are not understood by me..

I don't believe in using mathematics and statistics as the main focus in research, and I don't think its a focus in norwegian genealogy. 

But the way you present your theory it does look very mathematical.. Im not sure if I would call the proofs itself scientific but its the way these are used together and presented (all research has to be traceable and able to be compared and investigated by other researchers). Sources can be seen as more or less trustworthy, the closest to the event (primary sources) it is, the more trustworthy it usually is. And the more different sources agree the more trustworthy the proofs are (To me thats not mathematical, but reality..). 

[Jonas Jonsson]

 

By the way, I did not criticize. It was an observation. Now I know why you shy away from posting.

 

I don't see the point of engaging in a semantic debate about the differences between an observation and criticism. Perhaps you should try to see your own faults before pointing out those of others. Your own writing is not of such a quality that you can pass judgment on the writing of others. That's all I have to say. 

[JR Olsen]

David, what about subsidiaries?

 

I appreciate you taking the time and attempt at understanding my research. If you did not understand it by now, then more will probably confuse you immensely. Do not take offense to that. I hope you can take it as I mean it.

 

It is time to end these postings. My objective has been reached, and that is all that one can hope to accomplish. It was a learning experience for me. I now realize the differences between the approach to science by Norwegians and others. It is not that one is correct and the other is wrong. It is only different.

 

I understand that you and others want to know more about my research methods. Please, try to understand that in addition to using common methods I also over the years have designed my own research methods. These methods work excellent for me. I have no interest in revealing to anyone what my own research methods entail.

 

Thank you for assisting me in a learning experience.

 

To all, I hope you have a great Easter.

[David Widerberg Howden]

David, what about subsidiaries?

 

I appreciate you taking the time and attempt at understanding my research. If you did not understand it by now, then more will probably confuse you immensely. Do not take offense to that. I hope you can take it as I mean it.

 

It is time to end these postings. My objective has been reached, and that is all that one can hope to accomplish. It was a learning experience for me. I now realize the differences between the approach to science by Norwegians and others. It is not that one is correct and the other is wrong. It is only different.

 

I understand that you and others want to know more about my research methods. Please, try to understand that in addition to using common methods I also over the years have designed my own research methods. These methods work excellent for me. I have no interest in revealing to anyone what my own research methods entail.

 

Thank you for assisting me in a learning experience.

 

To all, I hope you have a great Easter.

 

Well its not easy to translate the meaning of every english phrase or word to norwegian. Some words and phraces even though they are translated correctly, doesn't always mean the same in Norwegian. So Im really not sure what you mean by subsidiaries in genealogy? Do you mean where sources lack, you can use other similar sources to prove whats missing or something? Or do you mean secondary sources? Im interested in learning, but I guess its hard to fully grasp the depth in research, written in a foreign language..

 

I agree that we may look at research, science and genealogy a bit different than how you describe. The techniques is as you said different, and one is not necessarily more correct. To me its how you come to the conclusion that is important: To be able to trace how a conclusion is reached, and what sources it is based on, this is part of what I call scientific. 

 

Although we may conclude and think different, I also would like to thank you for trying to understand how norwegian researchers interpret and use sources.. 

 

Happy easter ;)

[Harry Aronsen]

.

 

I understand that you and others want to know more about my research methods. Please, try to understand that in addition to using common methods I also over the years have designed my own research methods. These methods work excellent for me. I have no interest in revealing to anyone what my own research methods entail.

 

 

 

This must be a true scientist`s modus operandi.