GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-03 > 1269580630


From: lostcopper <>
Subject: Re: those Butlers again
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.71.1269552043.5522.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, M Sjostrom <> wrote:
> I find Bronwen's "weight of evidence" made totally in the wrong way.
> This wishful thinker's way is so unbecoming to any academic person.
>
> The following quotes from her, reveal that she does not follow standards of
> evidence, but instead does it squarely with the standard of wishful
> thinking:
> * "..... if presented with overwhelming evidence that the connection is
> false, I will have to accept that."
> * ".....not yet seen evidence of a sort that cannot be questioned..."
>
> The latter quote in its context seems to reveal that Bronwen sees this
> filiation as the goal, and if any evidence against it can be questioned, she
> questions the evidence which is against - and does not allow the filiation
> to be questioned by same standard, nor apparently the evidemce in favor of
> the filiation
>
> The first quote reveals that Bronwen's set of the burden of proof in this
> matter is totally bass-ackwards. The burden of proof in exactly the way
> wishful thinkers do it.
> When a filiation is claimed, the burden of proof is in logical standard that
> the filiation needs to be proven.
> Whereas to reject it, no proof is needed. Thusly, it is already *extra*, if
> there is presented either some testimony, or proof-based arguments, that the
> filiation would be impossible, or implausible, or unlikely, or likelier to
> be something else.
>
> If there's testimony which supports  the possibility that the filiation
> could be correct, and then exists testimony, facts and valid fact-based
> arguments that the filiation is unlikely implausible etc, then the filiation
> remains unproven and to the side of 'unlikely' unless the supporting
> evidence is actually confirming that it highly likely was this filiation.
>
> The normal standard is not that the claimed filiation should be proven
> false.
> Someone's *faith* that a filiation was in that, it actually pretty
> worthless, and does not need to be proven *false*.
> It is unreasonable to require that a pet pedigree (or filiation) is shown
> false - because their contemporarues generally did not go around to write
> preserved records that this and this are not children of all those and also
> not child of this...
>
> Bronwen should rather be questioning -for a change- that evidence which she
> takes to support the desired filiation.
> There are other, good explanations for practically all of that 'supporting
> evidence' than it really meaning the filiation that Christiana were born of
> Elizabeth.
>
> As I see it, Bronwen has a pet filiation in this (which is not supported
> well), and behaving quite much like wishful thinkers; She requires others to
> show her pet filiation to be false.
>
> Similarly behaved Bill Arnold as to his pet pedigrees, and behaved a number
> of others.
> Wishful thinkers.
> genealogical embarrassments.
> spreaders of unsupported pedigrees. practically false pedigrees.
>
> The filiation that Elizabeth were the mother of Christiana, is such a weak
> piece  It should be treated as unlikely or false, already because of the
> weakness of any facts purported to support it.
> and anyway, in no rational context, should anybody need to "present with
> overwhelming evidence" that the connection is false.
>
> As Bronwen persists in her unwarranted pet filiation, I believe that it's
> quite right for any others to state that the said filiation is likely a
> false one, and that its spread at face-velue 'true' is an intentional thing
> from its benefitors, though even the benefitors know about its weakness.
> False.
>
> ---------
>
> this brings to my mind: I have an attested ancestor whose name was George,
> and who lived roughly in the same era as king George II of Britain. They had
> some characteristics shared.... Following Bronwen's example, (start joking
> mode) undoubtedly my that ancestor was king George II. (....E)
>
> My another ancestor happened to carry the relatively rare baptismal name
> Burchard. and he was from roughly same regions as certain high-medieval
> Dukes named Burchard.
> One of men in that family married a Carolingian descendant.
> Surely, this similarity of names confirms a descent between them. Sure.
> So, following Bronwen's example, (start joking mode) undoubtedly my said
> ancestor was descended directly from that specific Carolingian and the
> medieval family of Burchards. (...E)
>
> But I am not going to wishful thinking,
> and quite certain that I am not going to present those ideas without
> cautionary remarks.

You are doing me an injustice. My evidence is not THAT flimsy. Come to
think of it, I have ancestors named George...do you think we're
related?


This thread: