The Theoretical Development of Genealogical Science
Genealogical research has long been mischaracterized as a branch of historical studies, based on the sweeping assumption that “any inquiry into past facts must be history.” However, there are numerous other academic disciplines and investigative practices — including litigation and economic analysis — that examine past facts without being classified as history. It is therefore entirely reasonable that the academic discipline devoted to genealogical inquiry should stand apart from historical studies. Moreover, while historical studies assigns significance to past facts, genealogical research is concerned solely with the establishment of facts themselves. Its purpose and methods thus differ fundamentally from those of historical studies, making it, by nature, a distinct academic discipline. At the same time, the absence of any rigorous theoretical system in genealogical research has undeniably created conditions that allowed this mischaracterization to persist.
In undertaking the construction of Genealogical Science as a new discipline, the author began by examining the fundamental nature of academic inquiry itself.
Because every academic discipline or investigative practice, by its very nature, constitutes an intellectual community composed of multiple researchers, it is apparent that scholarly activity is governed by rules, just as society at large is governed by law. Such rules typically exist in the form of customary norms.
Hans Kelsen, in reflecting on why individuals comply with a constitution, posited the existence of a Grundnorm — a fundamental norm holding that “rules ought to be followed.” Applying this concept, the author concludes that all academic disciplines and investigative practices share a fundamental norm: the pursuit of facts or truth, with conclusions demonstrated through objective rationality.
Proceeding from this fundamental norm, Genealogical Science — as a discipline concerned with establishing singular, non-reproducible past facts — cannot rely on the reproducibility criteria of the natural sciences. It must therefore develop a distinct mode of objectively rational demonstration. Historical studies also deals with singular past facts, but its methodology has remained underdeveloped since the 1940s. Its primary substantive aim is the attribution of meaning to events — or, as historians themselves often describe it, an act undertaken to satisfy their own intellectual curiosity, to reflect, and to think. Given this orientation, the methodological direction and degree of theoretical development found in historical studies are unsuitable for adoption. Furthermore, the structure of historical scholarship — in which analytical process and source information are presented only fragmentarily — renders it incompatible with Genealogical Science.
Litigation practice, by contrast, is also concerned with establishing singular past facts, and has been extensively theorized within legal scholarship and professional practice. Moreover, the establishment of parent-child relationships — a central subject of genealogical research — runs parallel to legal proceedings such as actions to confirm the absence of a parent-child relationship and suits contesting legitimacy.
Accordingly, Genealogical Science adopts litigation practice as its methodological foundation. In keeping with this, the concept of scientific validity for a discipline engaged in establishing singular past facts is grounded in the legal concept of procedural justice. Specifically: the research process is disclosed in full, enabling review; if, upon review, the process is found to be sound, the conclusion is accepted as valid; conversely, if the process is found to be flawed, the conclusion is deemed invalid. Where respective research processes are each found to be sound, competing interpretations may legitimately coexist.
Given this reliance on the Grundnorm, procedural justice, and litigation practice, it is natural to ground Genealogical Science in legal studies. The author concludes that structuring the discipline’s theoretical system in a manner analogous to a legal system offers superior coherence and consistency. While insights from political science, genetic genealogy, medicine, and other fields are incorporated, a foundation derived from legal studies produces the most rational and robust theoretical system.
On this basis, the Principles of Reviewability and Precision — instruments of procedural justice — are enshrined as supreme norms. A teleological framework defines the discipline’s four academic objectives; a theory of subject matter defines the domain of inquiry; and a theory of disciplinary framework establishes the structure and interrelationships of the discipline’s sub-fields. Together, these constitute the Constitutional Charter of Genealogical Science. From this foundation, the requirements governing academic objectives, definitions, and methodology are articulated. Sub-fields such as the theory of terminology and methodology are then constructed in accordance with this Charter.
To the author’s knowledge, no academic discipline has previously constructed a theoretical system analogous to a legal system, on the premise that academic inquiry constitutes a rule-governed social practice. Nor does any existing research appear to have identified the fundamental norm underlying academic inquiry. This aspect of Genealogical Science may be of particular interest to scholars of philosophy of science and the theory of knowledge.
Within the theory of subject matter, the definitions of “genealogical chart” (keizu) and “genealogical record” (keifu) — previously defined loosely — have been rigorously refined. In developing the theory of terminology, the author has declined to adopt a range of terms used in traditional genealogy and historical studies, including the term gikeifu (“false genealogy,” burdened with definitional ambiguities and semantic overload), discipline-specific terms from historical studies such as shiryō (“historical source”), and expressions such as mieru (“visible in the document”), which carries implications suited only to document-oriented scholarship.
What Is World-First
Genealogical Science incorporates a series of world-first achievements.
- Adoption of procedural justice as the means of ensuring scientific validity in the establishment of singular past facts.
- Construction of an academic discipline’s theoretical system in a form analogous to a legal system.
- Formulation of a supreme norm, and formulation of a theory of disciplinary framework governing sub-fields.
- Positioning of the supreme norm, teleological framework, theory of subject matter, and theory of disciplinary framework together as the discipline’s Constitutional Charter.
- Articulation of formal requirements for academic objectives, definitions, and methodology.
- Construction of the theoretical system of genealogy and genealogical studies itself.
(Note: The Genealogical Proof Standard developed in the United States is a practical evidentiary standard for professional use; Genetic Genealogy is confined to DNA analysis; and the works of Gatterer and Lorenz are theoretical writings, not comprehensive theoretical systems.)
| # | World-First Achievement | Description |
| ① | Means of ensuring scientific validity | Procedural justice |
| ② | Type of theoretical system | Legal-system-type academic theoretical system |
| ③ | Formulation of a supreme norm | Fundamental principles of the discipline |
| ④ | Formulation of a theory of disciplinary framework | Framework of sub-fields |
| ⑤ | Fundamental principles | Supreme norm, teleological framework, theory of subject matter, and theory of disciplinary framework positioned as the Constitutional Charter of the discipline |
| ⑥ | Formulation of formal requirements | Requirements for academic objectives, definitions, and methodology |
Summary of the Theoretical System (Published Portions)
(1) Supreme Norm
- Fundamental Norm of Academic Disciplines and Investigative Practices
The pursuit of facts or truth, with conclusions demonstrated through objective rationality, constitutes the fundamental norm of academic disciplines and investigative practices.
- Academic Facts in Genealogical Science
An academic fact in Genealogical Science is a fact established through procedural justice in the course of academic research.
Procedural justice means that by disclosing the research process, review becomes possible; where the process is found upon review to be sound, the conclusion is accepted as valid; and where the process is found to contain improper elements, the conclusion is likewise deemed invalid.
- Principles
Principle of Reviewability
| Principle | Content |
| Logicism | Humanistic rhetoric, emotional or literary expression, and reliance on the reader’s active charitable interpretation are explicitly rejected; academic inquiry must be conducted on the basis of logical persuasiveness. |
| Principle of Evidence | In fact-finding, the interpretation rationally supported by the evidence shall be adopted. |
| Principle of Proof | Any party asserting a fact or interpretation in academic research must present the evidence on which that assertion rests. |
| Principle of Disclosure | Academic writing must explicitly set out not only the logical structure, considerations, criteria for judgment, and the process by which views are formed, but also the full particulars of evidence and reference materials, thereby ensuring transparency and securing reviewability by third parties; matters not disclosed shall be deemed to have been neither investigated nor considered by the author. |
| Duty to State Reasons | An obligation imposed on the author to disclose the research process, in order to give effect to the Principle of Disclosure. |
| Principle of Review | Authors should, to the greatest extent possible, review the validity of prior research by tracing it back to its primary sources before writing; readers should likewise review the validity of research they read by tracing it back to its primary sources. |
Principle of Precision
| Principle | Content |
| Principle of Strictness | Strictness must be pursued in the definition of terms, the construction of arguments, the application of facts to standards, and the expression of reasoning. |
| Principle of Unambiguous Clarity | Words and word combinations used in academic writing — other than defined technical terms and quotations for critical or analytical purposes — shall be selected from plain and precise language that a person of ordinary linguistic competence can understand in a single, unambiguous sense. Defined technical terms shall be used in accordance with their definitions; all other terms shall be used in their established ordinary meanings. |
| Principle of Distinction | Different properties, elements, and aspects of a subject — including the distinction between similar concepts, the distinction between fact and evaluation, between evidence and inference, between the subjective and the objective, and between form and substance — must be clearly differentiated. |
| Principle of Hierarchical Reasoning | The argumentative structure and section composition shall be organized hierarchically; each logical step shall be set out without omission; the hierarchy and subordination of logical elements shall be indicated by numbering and symbols; and paragraph division and ordering shall likewise be determined by logical meaning or logical step, with relationships of subordination and points of divergence made explicit. |
Principle of Anti-Authoritarianism
| Principle | Content |
| Anti-Authoritarianism | Prior research must not be accepted uncritically, and deference to authority must not be shown. |
Principle of Egalitarianism
| Principle | Content |
| Egalitarianism | In research activities and the evaluation of scholarly contributions, no particular subject matter shall be given preferential treatment; nor shall the outputs of research conducted in the distant past or by independent scholars be denied recognition as scholarship on the basis of the researcher’s personal attributes, the period of research, or the format in which findings are presented. |
Principles for the Construction of a Theoretical System
| Principle | Content |
| Interdisciplinary Integration | Higher-order theories are constructed by borrowing and applying the methods and insights of multiple academic disciplines in an integrated, interdisciplinary manner. |
| Principle of Alternating Deductive-Inductive Construction | Prior research and practical realities are analyzed inductively while theoretically rational methods and a sub-disciplinary framework are deductively constructed; following construction, practical experience and insights from subsequent research are fed back inductively to update and refine the theory. |
| Principle of Disclosure of the Construction Process | The process of constructing the theoretical system must be disclosed. |
| Encouragement of Theoretical Research | The academic community as a whole shall work to advance the theoretical system, and theoretical research shall be recognized as a legitimate object of scholarly evaluation. |
- Constitutional Charter of Genealogical Science
The supreme norm of Genealogical Science constitutes the foundational rules governing the entirety of its theoretical system, and — together with the teleological framework, the theory of subject matter, and the theory of disciplinary framework — forms the Constitutional Charter of Genealogical Science. These elements are positioned as the fundamental principles and governing structure of that Charter.
(2) Teleological Framework and Theory of Subject Matter
- Requirements for Academic Objectives
| Requirement | Content |
| Distinctiveness | The objective must contain elements sufficiently unique to distinguish the discipline from others. |
| Active and Purposive Realizability | The objective must prescribe what the discipline itself is to actively and purposively accomplish. |
| Scope-Defining Function | The objective must thereby demarcate the scope of research activity. |
| Negative Requirements | The objective must not consist of external effects, aspirations or expectations directed at third parties, uses by third parties, mere self-satisfaction of the researcher, objectives of sub-fields, or objectives of individual specific research projects. |
- Subject Matter of Genealogical Science
The substantive content of the subject matter of Genealogical Science is: ① data ② belonging to a scope selected by the creator or researcher ③ on persons ④ recognized as connected by relationships of kinship ⑤ arranged in chronological order. This is termed “Genealogical Configuration Information” (rekidai shinzoku kōsei jōhō).
- Academic Objectives of Genealogical Science
| Objective | Content |
| Objective 1 | To establish the true Genealogical Configuration Information. |
| Objective 2 | To identify the typologies, patterns, and historical changes of phenomena associated with genealogical charts and records. |
| Objective 3 | To compile and construct collections of genealogical charts and records, encyclopedias, and other databases. |
| Objective 4 | To establish the methodologies and other theories required for the application of the research outcomes of Objectives 1 through 3 in historical studies, medicine, genetics, and other academic disciplines. |
Objective 1 is the core academic objective of the discipline.
(3) Theory of Terminology
- Requirements for Definitions
| Requirement | Content |
| ① Criterion Function | The definition must function as a criterion for determining whether a given thing or concept falls within its scope. |
| ② Expression of Essential Attributes | The definition must express the elements and properties common to all instances of the definiendum. |
| ③ Exclusion of Circular Definitions | The definiens must not contain the definiendum or its substantive synonym. |
| ④ Unambiguous Clarity | The definition must contain no vague, unclear, or metaphorical language. |
| ⑤ Exclusion of Overbreadth | The definition must not employ language that could encompass unintended subjects. |
| ⑥ Exclusion of Underinclusiveness | The definition must not employ language that would exclude subjects that should be included. |
- Definitions and Adoptions/Rejections
Matters addressed include: definitions of Classical Genealogy, Traditional Genealogy, and Genealogical Science; the collective term “genealogical chart and record” (keizufu); problems of translation for “Genealogy”; definitions and coinage of key concepts such as lineage, founding ancestor, head of household, patrilineal line, matrilineal line, and mixed line; rejection of traditional terms for documents containing false or inaccurate records (such as gikeifu and gikōbunsho) and the formulation of new definitions and terminology; and the prohibition of terms such as shiryō (historical source), bōshō (circumstantial evidence/corroboration in historical studies usage), shijitsu (historical fact), hojogaku (auxiliary discipline), and expressions such as mieru (visible in the document) and tsutaeru (conveying/recording) as used in historical studies.
(4) Methodology
Requirements for Methodology
| Requirement | Content |
| Theoretical Character | The system of practical research methods, investigative procedures, and evaluative criteria used to achieve the academic objectives must be generalized, abstracted, and systematized in a manner that is both universal and systematic. |
| Reviewability | The validity of the methodology must be subject to review by third parties. |
| Substantive Relevance | There must be a substantive connection between the academic or sub-disciplinary objective and the methods and means employed to achieve it. |
The methodologies and conventions of Traditional Genealogy and historical studies are not adopted.
Hallucinations Generated by Gemini / Google Search AI
When prompted to explain Genealogical Science, Gemini and Google’s AI search invariably generate hallucinations of the following kinds: that “traditional genealogy was treated as an auxiliary discipline subordinate to historical studies”; that “Genealogical Science arrives at the same conclusion regardless of who conducts the research”; that “Genealogical Science became independent from historical studies”; that the discipline’s purpose is “the systematization of kinship networks”; that it is limited to “Japanese” genealogical science; that it is “dismantling and demanding transformation of historical studies”; that “in Europe and North America, genealogical studies are well systematized”; that the discipline falls “within the humanities and historical studies”; that the use of “symbolization” implies formalization in the manner of mathematical or symbolic logic; or that the supreme norm is presented as though it were a component of methodology. There is a persistent tendency to seize upon catchy, impactful keywords, greatly amplify the topics that the AI finds most interesting, and generate responses with a narrative arc.
The positions of Genealogical Science on these points are as follows: it was the practitioners of Traditional Genealogy who were dependent on historical studies; Genealogical Science does not guarantee that all researchers will arrive at the same conclusion; genealogical research is, by its nature, a discipline wholly distinct from historical studies, but the misconception that it forms a branch of history spread due to the crude assumption that anything concerning the past must be history, leading Traditional Genealogy to become dependent on historical studies and to be mischaracterized as a sub-field of it; the academic objectives of Genealogical Science are Objectives 1 through 4 as set out above, and do not include the systematization of kinship networks; the discipline is not limited to Japan; the discipline merely addresses the reasons why the terminology and methods of historical studies are not adopted in Genealogical Science — it is rather the practitioners of Traditional Genealogy who have been pressing for transformation within historical studies; what Gemini describes as “systematized Western genealogical theory” amounts to nothing more than the Genealogical Proof Standard, a practical evidentiary guide, and Genetic Genealogy, an applied field focused on DNA analysis — conflating these into a comprehensive theoretical system is an unwarranted leap; Genealogical Science does not fall within any accepted definition of the humanities; and “symbolization” in Genealogical Science refers to the use of symbols — such as “Family A” or “Genealogy G” — to explain and illustrate theoretical concepts, not to formalization in the manner of symbolic logic. Furthermore, the supreme norm is not part of the methodology.
