Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- From: "letiTiAflufF@xxxxxxxxx" <letiTiAflufF@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:06:08 -0800 (PST)
From: user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5"
Crazies?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:02:40 -0600
References: <mailman.1500.1199321794.4586.gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1500.1199321794.4586.gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tony Hoskins wrote:
It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.
This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.
A connection does not need even one absolutely proven fact,
which alone proves the connection.
Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are
supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted.
Doug McDonald
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Are "TAF" & "MI5" Crazies?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:53:20 -0000
<G>
DSH
<letiTiAflufF@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6bc82ffe-8f30-4ec9-9a3b-
e11e1fad099d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 2, 7:24 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8d7083f6-ac42-4674-9dc3-0b0fdfb03be1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <reo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.
. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.
Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.
Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough. From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.
--------------------------------------------
taf is a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he can't
find
any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF.
Sure he can, Robert Peck de Beckles
<G>
DSH
: user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5"
Crazies?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:02:40 -0600
References: <mailman.1500.1199321794.4586.gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1500.1199321794.4586.gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tony Hoskins wrote:
It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein. Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.
This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.
Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted. Doug McDonald
taf was a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he
couldn't
find any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF and knew he would never make Willy
J. Coyote's bio webpages.
Assured now he can, his ancents back to Robert Peck de Beckles,
taf claims a page in history alongside Robert Cecil de Heckles
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- From: letiTiAflufF
- Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- Next by Date: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- Previous by thread: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- Next by thread: Re: Genealogical "burden of proof": was Are "TAF" and "MI5" Crazies?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
