How much of geneaology is accurate?

Question:Considering that in history a lot of adoptions where never documented, or other reasons why records might be inaccurate, on average how much that a person can find out about their ancestors several generations back is likely to be the truth?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Considering that in history a lot of adoptions where never documented, or other reasons why records might be inaccurate, on average how much that a person can find out about their ancestors several generations back is likely to be the truth?

One has to remember that genealogy is in fact a science. And as such, "accurate" really as a standalone word, has no meaning. What is accurate? Just that word, at least to me, implies either right or wrong, black or white.

That's not how science works. What any "SOUND" genealogical work is, just like any aspect of science, is accurate based on our current knowledge at the time.

Does anyone know with 100% accuracy who their father is? Answer - NO. The ONLY exception would be if a male and female were completely isolated from the rest of humanity for a period of a year prior to the birth of a child. Anyone else, you cannot know with 100% accuracy who the father is. And no DNA test will tell you that with 100% accuracy. If fact, no DNA test will tell you with 100% accuracy who the MOTHER is. Why? Because DNA testing involves a finite number of comparisons. And being finite, just by random occurrance, there will be people who will provide the same match.

As with any science, you make your best "guesses" (hypothesis in scientific terms) and test your hypothesis against the best information and knowledge available. Maybe tomorrow, some new piece of information becomes available. Maybe another document that SUPPORTS the hypothesis, or maybe they found that one clerk in Augusta County from 1940-1943 allowed mothers to declare someone the father on a birth certificate even when they knew it wasn't true. Or maybe they will find in 10 years that current DNA testing has significant flaws, in reality, it is very inaccurate - OR find that it is proving to be incredibly accurate.

Accurate to the best information we have at the time. That is all we can say as a science.

One of the problems is "layman" reporting of scientific results. Very, very few people take the time to read an actual study. Of course there are all kinds of news stories, articles, shows, that will interpret these results for you - most have some agenda they are pushing. But you can't know if the interpretation is in itself accurate. A previous answerer presented something about DNA testing proving that 2 out of 10 people have incorrect paternal identification??? What is the basis of that claim (the links provided don't exist)? Maybe there was a trial or experiment that in fact showed that 2 out of 10 people did not match in some way based on a specific analysis of DNA. But without reading the actual study (and with that, all the probabilities, the assumptions made, the limitations to the procedures - all which are in the study but tend to be dropped when subsequently reported by someone with an agenda), why would this not infer that the DNA test or analysis when used for this purpose is inaccurate as opposed to the parentage being inaccurate? Without the hard numbers, you can't tell which is the case. It is quite possible that is the conclusion of the study was that the specific DNA analysis was inaccurate for determining the probablity of parentage. Who knows.

Remember the ads that said 4 out of 5 dentists who recommend chewing gum recommended Trident??? That was absolutely true. However, what the study showed was that 99.8% of dentists DID NOT recommend chewing gum. only 2 in 1000 did - but of THOSE, 4 of 5 recommended Trident. I'm a bit surprised that the Trident manufacturers didn't mention that only 998 of 1000 dentists DID NOT recommend chewing trident.

Accurate yes - accurate based on the best information and knowledge we have today.

It all depends on the researcher and how they use there sources

That depends on the objectivity of the information - which is exactly why research and corraboration are important. As you indicate "between the lines", just because something is in print doesn't mean it's accurate. And, likewise, just because there is as accurate documentation as possible, doesn't mean that Bill Jr. was the biological son of Bill Sr. Perhaps this is why we are told in scripture not to base too much importance on the pursuit of geneologies, but focus on whether we are appropriately aligned to inherit eternal life through Jesus Christ. I'm very proud of my ancestral name, but if you do the math, 10 generations ago I had 1024 different grandparents, 20 generations ago I had over 500,000, and so on. I have more to gain focusing on nurturing the brotherhood of man (inclusive) than the differentiation of blood lines, nationalities and ethnic variations. (After 30 generations - approximately 600 years, or about 1400 AD - I have over 500 MILLION grandparents) We're all related.

Of course you can never be 100% ccertain especially with things like adoption which were mostly unofficial but I like to think that if you pursue the hobby with reasonable care it should be fairly accurate. Especially if you can get a fact confirmed by more than one source.

I think a lot of it depends on the individual too, some people are happy to download a big family tree off the 'net and happily claim it as theirs - right or wrong. Other people like to gather and check each piece of information for themselves.

Once you get to several generations back research becomes difficult anyway because of the lack of records.
In England before civil registration starting in 1837 and the census in 1841 it is really just the luck of the draw if you happen to find any useful information.

I don't think you can come up with numbers. There have always been adoptions, and those that didn't go into court records, may be better off (they aren't sealed). And there have always been extramarital goings on. Court records show ancient divorces, courts ordered fathers to support out of wed lock children. Churches kicked out unwed moms. Some things will never be found in records, but that doesn't mean families don't have some of the answers. I've worked at least one family who kept insisting that "dad" was killed in a railroad accident.. putting the records together, showed mom using her maiden name in a number of places up til her marriage.
Errors in records are to be expected..most experienced researchers advise strongly to get at least 2 or more sources, to evaluate. You can find persons age 2 in the census, when family thought they were not born until 2 yrs after the census. Many new researchers put too much faith in family stories, until they get the documentation.
The whole nature of good research is based in being skeptical of "facts" that there are no records to support. If it is not documented, it is most often shown in notes that "it is said that such and such is the fact, but records do not prove this". Almost all of the 'regulars' here constantly repeat the need to get GOOD documentation, and to not rely solely on the files of other persons.
I would have to say that my opinion is that people can learn far more than they expected, and how reliable it is, depends on how much energy they are willing to invest. If they put accuracy at the top of the list, they normally can do fairly well.

Here is an area where the science of DNA genealogy may help. Genetic testing shows non-paternal event rates of about 5 to 15 percent ( http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/pa... ). In cases where the birth certificate documents a birth the non-paternal rate is still >2% ( http://discovermagazine.com/2005/nov/who... ).

Over a genealogical time frame of 24 generations it averages out to about 2 in 10, or 20%, When the documented father is not the real father. Not as bad as predicted by the scientists. Leaving < 80% of well documented genealogy as accurate based on the best information and knowledge we have at this time.

I think that in the near future genetic testing will become a part of traditional genealogy because it provides solutions and workarounds for not only non-paternal events but also brick walls and dead ends.