This project is not part of Ancestry.com DNA sales. This project uses http://www.familytreedna.com   

Web space provided by rootsweb.com, sponsored by ancestry.com.

Please read notice in the bottom bar.

Advertisements at the top and bottom of the pages are not part of this project, 

visiting the links helps pay for the website space. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

This website has music on subsequent pages.

Please turn your volume down if needed.

~~~~~~~

Home    Site map

 

 

 

 

 

The Lost Colony Research Group

Genealogy ~ DNA ~ Archaeology

Newsletter

 

 

January 2012

The main street of Westminster was The Strand on which sat the church of St. Clement Dane.  Across the street were Essex House built in 1575 for Robert Dudley the Earl of Leicester and Arundel House the home of Henry Fitz-Alan the 12th Earl of Arundel, both of which ran from The Strand to the Thames. Arundel House was built before 1539 for the Bishop of Bath of Wells.  While Essex House was demolished sometime between 1674 and 1679, Arundel House still stands today.

The area known as Westminster was outside the gates, as was the parish of St. Clement Danes where Ananias DARE & Eleanor WHITE were married.  It would appear that the WHYTE family resided in the parish of St. Martin Ludgate, just inside the city gate, and records state that Ananias DARE was a resident of the parish of St. Bride’s which is on the Westminster side of the gate.  All three parishes churches were situated on the same street which was Fleet Street inside the walls and The Strand outside.

 

So, why did they marry at St. Clement Dane?  One can only speculate.  The WHITE family had become wealthy merchants with ‘connections’.  Did Eleanor leave as a bride from Essex or Arundel House?  Was their wedding feast held in either of these houses?

 

Why is genealogical research so daunting in early London?  Because the parishes were very small, and it was as easy to walk to one parish church as another, families baptized their children, married and were buried in several different parish churches.  Added to that, the Great Fire of 1666 destroyed many of the churches and some of their records.  After the fire, some churches were rebuilt, some congregations amalgamated with other parishes and some churches were just demolished.  Most of this is well documented, but it takes a lot of reading to follow where the parish records went.

 

In order the put a complete London family together, it is necessary to search just about every parish in the city as well as some that were considered to be in the counties surrounding the city.  While the lesser populus stayed within the walls, the wealthy often had a London residence and one or more estates in the country.  In my research for the Lost Colonists, and concentrating on the DARE & WHITE surnames, only by finding baptisms for children in London as well as one of the counties will I be able to find where the family estates were.

 

Britain’s Hidden History - http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/preromlondon.html

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundel_House

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_House_%28London%29

 

 

 

Conclusions and Jumping to Them

By Roberta Estes

 

One of the things that people who study the sciences in a university environment learn is how to think with both logic and reason.  This training is necessary to form a hypothesis and to construct experiments that will truly address the question or questions that are attempting to be answered, without bias.  This technique is called Cause and Effect Cognitive Reasoning.

 

However, it's easy to get caught up with what is colloquially called "pretzel logic."  And for those untrained as scientists, especially those who might want to believe something specific, it's very easy to see how pretzel logic occurs. 

 

Let's look at cause and effect cognitive reasoning. 

 

Example 1

 

1.  Eighty percent of the cracks in blacktop streets occur when the temperature is over 90 degrees. 

2.  Deaths in the elderly population increase when the temperature is over 90 degrees.

 

Conclusion:

Cracks in the street are causing an increase in deaths of elderly people.  Equally wrong conclusion - deceased elderly people are causing cracks in the street.

 

Why are these conclusions wrong?  Because while items 1 and 2 are linked by the same underlying cause, neither of them is the cause of the other.  It is incorrect to infer that they are.

 

Example 2

 

1.  All canine animals are ferocious (for this example).

2.  Bears are ferocious.

 

Conclusion:

Bears are canine animals.

 

Why is this wrong?  Just because items one and two are individually accurate does not mean that you can draw any parallel, analogy or conclusions between items one and two. 

 

This becomes more difficult when we introduce factors where we know the outcome to be true.

 

Example 3

 

1.  All living things need water.

2.  Roses need water.

 

Conclusion:

Roses are living things.

 

While this is factually true, it is not true because of the facts stated, but because of two facts  that are not stated. 

 

3.  Dead things do not need water, and...

4.  All thing are either dead or alive. 

 

When these two extra data points are added, we can then correctly deduce the answer that roses are living things.  However, to do so by using only statements 1 and 2 would be a logically incorrect process for the same reasons that our first two examples were wrong.  It's difficult to understand this though, because we already know that all matter is alive or dead and dead things don't need water. 

 

This is an example of letting pre-existing knowledge influence a conclusion.  Even though people claim to understand this logic process when stepped through examples individually, and the methods for accurate deductive reasoning, more than 80% of the population still fails simple logic tests.

 

So now that we understand how NOT to get caught up in logic traps, let's move on to areas more relevant to genealogy.

 

Example 4

 

1.  A DNA participant matches an individual whose ancestor is known to live a few kilometers from the participants ancestor in Germany.

2.  The matches ancestor is Jewish.

 

Conclusion: 

The participant is Jewish.

 

What is wrong with this conclusion?  This is the same situation as  Example 2 where the two individual statements are true, but no connection can be drawn between the two facts. 

 

Could this be true, meaning could the participant's ancestor be Jewish?  Yes, but one cannot state that it is true through logic or deductive reasoning based on only the information presented here.  More information is needed.

 

What might the scenarios be?

 

The two individuals may have a common ancestor in the Middle East before the dawn of the Jewish religion and migrated to Germany independently.

 

The two individuals may share a common ancestor in Europe, and one family may have subsequently converted to Judaism.

 

The two individuals may share a common ancestor in Europe, and one family may have subsequently converted from Judaism. 

 

There is not enough information given in items 1 and 2 to reach any conclusion about Jewish heritage for the participant.  To conclude otherwise would be incorrect at best, and potentially unethical, depending on the circumstances and motivation for drawing the incorrect conclusion.

 

Example 5

 

1.  A Y-line DNA participant claims to have Native heritage.

2.  The DNA participant carries yline haplogroup R1b or a subclade.

 

Conclusion: 

Haplogroup R1b indicates Native heritage.

 

This is the perfect example of pretzel logic.  This is incorrect because while these items individually may be perfectly accurate, there is no logical link between the two.  Here's why.

 

The individual may not have Native heritage at all.

 

The individual may have Native heritage, but not on the paternal line.

 

If the individual does have proven Native Heritage on the paternal line by genealogically accepted documentation sources, such as the Guion-Miller Rolls, the paternal ancestral DNA can still be European because many European males fathered children with Native women and those children were considered full tribal members due to their mother's tribal status.  However, the DNA of these fathers is still of European origin, regardless of whether the children were considered tribal members or not.

 

No DNA tests on pre-contact burials produce any evidence of European haplogroups, so there is no reason to suspect that any haplogroup R1b members were part of either initial or later migrations to North America before European contact.

 

Example 6

 

1.  A male in the Melungeon project carries haplogroup E.

2.  An individual in the Portuguese project carries haplogroup E.

 

Conclusion: 

Men who carry haplogroup E are Portuguese.  Equally wrong conclusion - all Portuguese men with haplogroup E are Melungeon.

 

Why is this wrong?  I'm sure by now you recognize the error in the logic.  These two statements, while individually true, have nothing to do with each other.  What might be more accurate situations?

 

There are many men in Portugal who carry haplogroup E.  Haplogroup E was born in Africa and through migration and enslavement, haplogroup E subgroups are found throughout Europe and the Americas.

 

Melungeon males who carry haplogroup E need to be individually evaluated as to the locations of their matches, both current and ancestral, and results combined with genealogy.

 

Melungeons are defined as a particular group of individuals in a specific place and time, and people living in Portugal are not included in the group defined by documented records.

 

People who are members of haplogroup E can be found in nearly every geographic project, so finding one in the Portuguese project and logically connecting the Portuguese to the Melungeons due to this finding would come under the category of either pretzel logic or perhaps the desire for a particular outcome.

 

Searching for Data to Support a Desired Outcome

 

Drawing a conclusion and then attempting to fit data into the conclusion isn't science, it's deception, but unfortunately, to the uninitiated, it can sound quite compelling.  This is why academic peer review panels exist in the scientific world, to insure unbiased reporting of results and accuracy of logic in the scientific process.  There are no internet police to regulate the truthfulness or accuracy of websites and what they have to say, but in academic publishing there are editors and peer review boards, and they are brutal.  They do however, insure that the consuming public can have faith in the results within the limits of what science had to offer at the time of publication.  

 

 

Summary

 

The internet is the perfect breeding ground for pretzel logic.  People desperately want to believe one thing or another, someone is Native or isn't European, is Jewish or isn't, for example, and using pretzel logic, they can convince themselves, and sometimes others as well that A and B separately are true, so combine them to get C.  This isn't a recipe, and A and B can't simply be combined. 

 

At the following website, compliments of California State University at Fullerton, several examples of different types of faulty reasoning are provided.  http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm

 

Dr. Robert Gass, who provides this website, specializes in Human Communications in the areas of persuasion, arguments, critical thinking and deception detection.  http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/ 

 

Don't fall into the pretzel logic trap.  Be sure when you're evaluating logic statements and scenarios, especially those described by others that you don't allow previous knowledge, preconceived ideas or personal desires to cloud your vision.  Be sure to ask yourself if these factors might be influencing the position of the individual making the statements.   

 

 

 

 

 

Next Page

 

   

Back to the newsletter index

 

 

 

 

Contact Information: 

Electronic mail

General Information/Project Membership: robertajestes@att.net 

Notice

The Lost Colony Research Group is in NO WAY affiliated with The Lost Colony Center for Science and Research.  The Lost Colony Y-DNA and MT-DNA projects at Family Tree DNA are NOT IN ANY WAY  affiliated with The Lost Colony Center for Science and Research, regardless of what their links imply.

 

"Please notify us of any claims to the contrary."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no fee to join our group and no donation of monies or objects are needed to participate in "The Lost Colony Research Group".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As with any DNA project, individuals pay for their own DNA testing, but the
group itself  - is strictly volunteer and free to join, upon approval of membership.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Neither Rootsweb.com, myself, nor the Lost Colony Research Group together or individually are  responsible for the personal content submitted by any individual to this website.

 

Send mail to nelda_percival@hotmail.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2008 Last modified: January 05, 2012

 

ART WORK

The art work on this website is my (Nelda L. Percival) original art work and has not been released to any person or organization other then for the use of Lost Colony Research Group and the store front owned by the same. My art work has never been part of the Lost Colony Center for Science and Research's property. My art used here and at the store front was drawn precisely for the projects run by Roberta Estes and ownership has not been otherwise released. This project also uses the artwork of Dr. Ana Oquendo Pabon, the copyright to which she has retained as well. Other art works are the copyrights of the originators and may not be copied without their permission.
All DNA Content on this site belongs to the individuals who tested and or their representatives . The person who tested does not give up ownership of their DNA or DNA results by posting them here.
Where Copyrighted data has been cited the source has been included........
Some Native American art work is from http://www.firstpeople.us  Some of their art was used as a bases for different creative graphics.