Sources matter: Therefore, because of this, is illogical, and it's wrong

When you take a college level course in introduction to philosophy,  you learn that there are certain types of arguments that are built on falsehoods, also known as fallacious logic.

They include, but are not limited to:

• Post Hoc Ergo Promptor Hoc, the "therefore, because of this" argument.
• Straw Man, where you attack by twisting your opponent's position and words
• Ad Hominem, Where you attack the other person instead of building a sound argument for yourself.    

In genealogy, the culprit that people will use, or in reviewing other people's work find, is the Post Hoc Ergo Promtor Hoc.  

What a Post Hoc logic statement does is allow people to make a conclusion based condition, instead of making a conclusion based on a review of verifiable evidence. 

So when you draw a conclusion based on a trend, or a pattern of repeat, and think "Well 'this' is true because in the past 'that' has happened to others.  Therefore it has to be true in this case as well."  And an example would be: 

"Jon Smith is in the 1880 U.S. Census in Bentonville, Arkansas, age 2/12, therefore he was born in Bentonville."

or

"Barbara Tischman was last enumerated in the 1910 census as living in Ambler, Pennsylvania, and since she died at the end of the month that the enumeration, she died in Ambler, Pennsylvania."

or 

"It says in this will that Estil Hogson left all of his worldly goods to Evelyn Waugh.  Since Evelyn is a woman's name, she must be in the census somewhere, but I can't find her." 

See that leap of faith?

There is an old Yiddish saying that goes something like this: "Nist gastroygen und nist gafloygen."  The literal translation is that "it did hop up and it didn't fly." 

Jon Smith could have been born in Hickory, North Carolina, or Havana, Cuba.  1880 that type of journey could be easily been made in 60 days. And as for Mrs. Tischman, she could have been visiting in Ambler on the date of the census, she could have lived there, and then moved.  People die all the time in different places.   Just because a fact exists on one day, doesn't mean it applies to a person in a few. 

And as Evelyn, can be a woman's name or a man's name.  Same for Beverly. 

So today on Ancestry I found something that really bothered me. It involved my father's family.

Some well meaning person took it upon herself to include my father's family in her tree.  She is not related, except by marriage.  And what I found was a leap of faulty logic that really hit me wrong.

First, I know that you never trust anyone's internet tree.  Secondly, I know that you can look at it, or ignore it.

Here's why I looked at: she had named my father's sister Betty, born Bessie, but was in this persons tree as "Basheve".

This caught my eye because 1) No one in the family ever said that Betty, born "Bessie" was ever named "Basheve".  2) No one in my family would ever name their child after a deceased relative, ever.

The tradition in my paternal family, which is different than most European Jewish families, is to take an initial of someone who has died recently and give the baby a name that begins with the first letter.  And you never name a baby after someone who is living, ever.

So when I was born, the last of seven grandchildren, they had to reach back - way back, to my great grandfather Schumulia, and thus from that my mother chose Stuart. My Hebrew name is Shalom, not Schumulia.  My father's first name is Marvin, for his maternal grandfather, Mowsha, and dad's Hebrew name was Mendel.

"Basheve" is my great great grandmother's name - no last name that we know of, yet.   So when I saw that her great grandmother's name was applied to my Aunt Betty, something was very off.

So I wrote a very respectful note and asked if this person had sources, because if she did, I would be very happy to know of them.

She did not.

"I saw it on another tree and its fits with the Eastern European Jewish tradition of naming children after deceased relatives..."

Here's the problem with making assumptions, it looks like you are jumping from one conclusion to another.  And when you are dealing with Jewish genealogy, these little assumptions make for huge mistakes.

And because these early conservative shuls (an Orthodox Synagogue, a Temple) on the east side of Cleveland don't exist anymore, finding those records would be a miracle.

So I wrote to her and asked, in a kind fashion, if she would drop Basheve as a name from the tree because their is no factual foundation.  Without responding to me, she did make that correction.  And I am grateful that she did.

But the point is, I shouldn't have had to ask because she shouldn't had made that leap.

She shouldn't have taken it upon herself to publish that.

It didn't hop up, and it didn't fly with me.