Oops, I've Stepped on Someone's Toes ....

Image courtesy of digitalart/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Or at least that's the best explanation I can come up with.  Dick Eastman posted an article on Sunday, June 15, titled "Forensic Genealogy Explained."  I disagreed with several points in the article and posted a comment — which didn't appear online.  I thought, "Hmm, maybe my comment didn't go through.  I'll try it again."  And the second comment . . . didn't appear.  Then I received five comments from other people on the post, so the problem does not appear to be that the comment function isn't working.  The majority of the other comments agreed with my points.  And I know my comments to other people's WordPress blogs haven't had any problems in the past.  So I guess he didn't like what I had to say or how I said it.  I wasn't trying to tick anyone off, I promise.  But I am tired of people using the term "forensic genealogy" in whatever manner they choose.  My first career (which I still practice) was as an editor, and I still appreciate accuracy and precision in speech and writing.

Well, luckily for me, I have my own blog, where I am free to post whatever I want.  So below is the comment that Mr. Eastman declined to include as a response to his item.

===

The word “forensic” does not precisely mean “relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence”, because the rest of the definition has been truncated, deliberately or otherwise.  It actually means “relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law” [added emphasis mine], which is an important distinction.  Forensic intrinsically means having to do with legal matters, not simply relating to scientific endeavors.

Because the complete definition makes it clear that forensic means relating to legal matters, the term “forensic genealogy” is not being misused when it is applied to heir searches.  Heir searches are conducted to determine the legal heirs to an estate and allow the disposition of that estate.  The legal implications of that should be abundantly clear.

Colleen Fitzpatrick's book Forensic Genealogy does not relate to actual forensic genealogy.  It deals in scientific and analytical aspects of family history research.  Using DNA to determine if I am related to someone else is scientific, but if there are no legal implications associated with that identification, it is not a forensic matter.  Looking at the edges of photographs to see if they match up is an analytical exercise, but unless I am doing that in conjunction with a legal matter, it is not forensic.  Magnifying a photo to see the detail is again analytical, but if there are no legal ramifications, it is not forensic.

Arbitrarily changing the definition of a word to suit one's own purposes is a habit usually attributed to governments and propagandists, not historians, family or otherwise.

===

Disclaimer:  I am a member of the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy, which is concerned with laying a strong foundation for genealogists to practice sound forensic genealogy.  This post is my own opinion.

My own take on the incorrect use of "forensic" is that it's being done to capitalize on the current popularity of the term, with no regard for accuracy.  But the latter is also strictly my own opinion.