GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081034919


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:28:39 -0700
References: <c57e4f24.0403141731.5b931209@posting.google.com> <Yfqac.16754$Ku3.7324@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0403311402.37df8950@posting.google.com> <BAIac.30928$0d.25045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0404010237.6708eb70@posting.google.com> <406BE67B.1020104@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404011411.797b638@posting.google.com> <406C9A90.B64BDFE0@scs.uiuc.edu> <7004aa4b.0404021653.cd38565@posting.google.com> <406E4EAD.4020207@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404031410.37aa9a31@posting.google.com>


Shawn Potter wrote:
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message news:<>...
>
>>Shawn Potter wrote:
>>
>>>Doug McDonald <> wrote in message news:<>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Obviously, as I mentioned, if somebody discovered the
>>>>"Dead Sea Genealogical Scrolls" and they were dated
>>>>as contemporaneous, then that could be proof. What he
>>>>should have said is "unsupportable with present data".
>>>
>>>Yes, that would have been a more sensible conclusion.
>>
>>What genealogical statement is not made with the understanding
>>that data yet to be discovered may alter the conclusion? This
>>is, in fact, the case with all genealogy. [Heck, we are all just
>>one DNA test away from finding out that our father is not our
>>father, yet I am not going to address him as "Dad (With Present
>>Data)".] A qualifier that applies universally is not worth
>>repeating with every statement.
>>
>>taf
>
>
> According to your argument, we cannot draw any conclusions about
> genealogy.

You might want to read what I wrote again, as your summary bears
no resemblance to it. I am saying just the opposite - that you
reach (and can only reach) conclusions based on the information
at hand, not on some hypothetical source yet to be discovered.
This is not without implications. First, all genealogical
conclusions are tentative, being based on the information
currently available and subject to ammendment, alteration or
rejection as a result of new discoveries. (This is not unique to
genealogy - it applies to virtually all research.) Second,
because this is always the case, it is silly to demand a
disclaimer to this effect when someone reaches a conclusion you
don't like.

> If you really believe that, why do you spend time on the
> subject.

If you prefer to be led by what you want to be true, rather than
what is supported by evidence, then why do you spend time on
genealogy, when literary fiction would seem to fulfill the same
desire?

> Wouldn't a more rational--and honest--approach be to avoid
> making unsupportable declarations?

I did support the statement that I made. I gave the reasoning
behind it and cited an author of the same opinion. I have asked
you why you think this support fails, why you think it is an
inaccurate analysis, but all you have done is stick your fingers
in your ears and shout, "No!" Do you have a point, other than to
express the offence that you appear to have taken at my having
questioned a 1200-year descent without any names in between and
without a single shred of supporting evidence?

taf

This thread: