Paul, I completely agree with your first two paragraphs, or premises,
down to "when our little pile of evidence is big and weighty enough,
we say we have "proved" the hypothesis (relationship)."

But I have to disagree with your next statement: "To waste time ...
appropriate labels or deciding whether this or that scrap of evidence
is primary, secondary, direct, indirect, hearsay, circumstantial, or
any other of those labels some folks attach, is simply silly."

I think those labels are vitally important when we are attempting to
communicate our own assessment of the evidence, or in forcing us (or
reminding us) to, in fact, perform such assessments.  Once that
assessment has been communicated then the "label" is the next person's
responsibility to self-assign, and no longer is relevant to us or in
our "control."  Now, if everyone exercised that disciplined process -
like we should do - we would not find so many Internet and published
genealogies asserting absolute statements of fact (as if proven) when,
if fact, there is little to no evidence to back it up, i.e., we'd have
a much better comprehension of the information that is being imparted.

Lou Poole, Richardson, TX

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html