> AEP wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > drawing reasonable conclusions. But then, sometimes we must be
> > willing to take logical leaps of faith before there is proof
> > positive
>
> Perhaps someone would point me to a definitive do***ent that
> pinpoints the difference between your "willingness to accept an
> unproven fact" and my "logical leap of faith" ?
>
> Because down where the rubber hits the gravel, dang if I see a real
> difference -- other than the obvious.
>
> Cheryl Singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Splitting hairs again, I see. I am, however, inclined to agree your
statement.
In one of my brick walls, I have found some half a dozen sources
that over whelmingly suggest a brother-sister relation****p, and yet
I cannot definitively prove the connection. But because this
evidence is all but definitive, I have accepted this relation****p as
my working hypothesis. In effect, I am taking a leap of faith that
the connection is true. At the same time, I am still looking for
that elusive piece to the puzzle.
My working definition of a leap of faith: such acceptance of the
unproven is as Sherlock Holmes (Sir Conan Doyle) said, "If all else
fails, then what remains must be true, no matter how improbable it
might be." If one has exhausted all other sources that suggest, but
do not prove a connection (or any other fact), one can reasonably
accept the unproven as the de facto truth. You will note that I
said ALL other sources! (In such cases, the more sources one has,
the better.) That said, the likelihood of that elusive piece of
evidence existing is always there. As genealogists we can and should
accept unproven facts (events, places, dates, etc.) with the caveat
that there is still some doubt and to announce that the doubt is
real.
Regards, Arnold
--
<><><><><<><><><><><><>
Arrowhead Images
<aepalmer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><><><><<><><><><><><>
I had a destiny once.
All it did was ge me into trouble!
|
