In message of 20 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > wrote: > > >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > > ><snip on making hypotheses> > > > >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 > >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries > >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > >> > >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements > >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. > > > >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his > >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died > >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. > > >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 > >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age > >marriage. > > That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. Hardly a test. I knew it was rubbish the moment I saw the marriage certificate as I already knew when both of them had died. I might then have double-checked that I was right by looking up my records of their respective deaths. But this was not a test of the original statement, merely of my reaction to it. I am uncomfortable about the use of the word 'test' for fairly simple factual statements. 'Test' is appropriate for complete hypotheses which are rather remote from facts, but so also is a long description of the facts that the hypothesis is trying to explain. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:23:45 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote: >In message of 20 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> >> wrote: >> >> >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> > >> ><snip on making hypotheses> >> > >> >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >> >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >> >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >> >> >> >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >> >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. >> > >> >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his >> >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died >> >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. >> >> >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 >> >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age >> >marriage. >> >> That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. > >Hardly a test. I knew it was rubbish the moment I saw the marriage >certificate as I already knew when both of them had died. It was rubbish to you, but apparently a fact to everyone else. So, is it a fact or a hypothesis according to the eye of the beholder? For an unknown number of years my gg grand was born in 1789. But by my analysis of statements and records I mathematically proved that he had to be born in 1790. In my mind 1789 was a fact, never a hypothesis. Two families in AR, each with two children. One father dies and children with the same names appear as two additions to the other family in the next census. They are the right age but also the right age to be the survivor's children. Without additional records, the choice of parents would be a hypothesis. The only fact is the coincidence of names. >I am uncomfortable about the use of the word 'test' for fairly simple >factual statements. 'Test' is appropriate for complete hypotheses which >are rather remote from facts, but so also is a long description of the >facts that the hypothesis is trying to explain. Over the last few years I have become more and more suspicious of data compiled by others regardless of the factual appearance. Dates on tombstones are often wrong if anyone cares to examine existing paper records. "In stone" would pretend to be a fact. Census records are considered "official". But ages are often lousy, as are states of birth. And I can document numerous families who never appeared in a census but I know where they were. My final thought is that our differences are not really in conflict. Even if they were it would require no change in our principles. Hugh