> Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > > proves a lack of evidence. > > > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > > estate inventory did not mention land. > > > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > > land. > > You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own > land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence > that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very > real one. > > > Also if your ancestor was born before the War Between the > > States but you find no evidence that mentions his death, I > > think most people would be willing to assume his demise. > > We can assume his demise, but we can't assume that he died in the > War between the States. The best we can do is say "died after > 1850", the last time I find a record of him - until I find more > information. We cannot assume when he really died, or how he died, > or even WHERE. If you can assume his demise, you can assume he didn't own any land. Either way the fact is unproven. Logic says he is dead - logic says that if he bought and sold or left land there would be some sort of record. And you can prove a negative - try operating a battery without a negative. And as Sherlock might have said, "Eliminate every positive and whatever remains must be negative." I would agree if all you are saying is that without conclusive evidence a conclusion based on logic should be properly noted. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)