1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.GENEALOGY.MEDIEVAL

  • Re: Cudworth

    From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Nov 3 20:06:48 2021
    On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 11:30:29 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:12:12 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
    Dear members,
    Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William
    Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
    Nancy
    Hi Nancy,

    Did you get anywhere on your Cudworth query? I just received a message from Douglas Richardson, through facebook, that the Mary Machell he identifies as the wife of Ralph Cudworth, so thus the mother of General James Cudworth. is correct as he has
    stated in the past, the child of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. The criticism of this identification by Adrienne Boaz is dismissed by Richardson.

    Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.

    D. E. Larocque

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to taf on Thu Nov 4 07:00:00 2021
    On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 9:18:17 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:06:49 PM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:

    Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.

    Such appeals to authority are never a good approach to genealogy. While one should be careful in following the conclusions of novices, one can be led down the garden path by simply basing one's conclusions on personalities rather than the strength of
    the evidence. The 'not proved' side should prevail if they have made the better case, with sounder sources and logic, and vice versa, no matter who is on which side.

    taf

    I appreciate the response, and yes it is true, but not all people can approach something from that neutral place and keep a clear head!

    So who decides who has made the better case? So far I haven't seen compelling evidence that would lead to not proven, and yet it is being defended as if there is a smoking gun definitively tossing out Richardson's conclusions. I see two people who are
    unmoved by any logic or sourcing which refutes their "disproven" mindset and in fact are rude about it frankly. That's certainly not a good approach either. I have found this sort of posturing in other places when it comes to native ancestry or
    nationalistic ancestral conflicts, and it never ends because of the same attitude. I just wanted to know why Richardson is so sure of his conclusions and work from there, but evidently that is even too much for those people I have just mentioned- hence
    this "Ho-hum.... It's no surprise that Richardson criticizes Boaz's criticism of Richardson's identification of Mary Machell." example. That's not a valid response in my mind... it sounds more like backbiting.

    I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know any of the parties arguing about the line, but when someone asked about it I wanted to put forth an effort to understand why they were asking, and frankly I think those involved need to tone it down and
    stick to the facts and logic.

    D. E. Larocque

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to Darrell E. Larocque on Thu Nov 4 06:18:15 2021
    On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:06:49 PM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:

    Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.


    Such appeals to authority are never a good approach to genealogy. While one should be careful in following the conclusions of novices, one can be led down the garden path by simply basing one's conclusions on personalities rather than the strength of
    the evidence. The 'not proved' side should prevail if they have made the better case, with sounder sources and logic, and vice versa, no matter who is on which side.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to Darrell E. Larocque on Thu Nov 4 08:44:22 2021
    On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:

    I appreciate the response, and yes it is true, but not all people can approach something from that neutral place and keep a clear head!

    True.

    So who decides who has made the better case?

    We each do, individually, based on our own evaluation of the evidence each has presented in favor of their viewpoint.

    So far I haven't seen compelling evidence that would lead to not proven, and yet it
    is being defended as if there is a smoking gun definitively tossing out Richardson's
    conclusions.

    This is a non-sequitur. Mr. Richardson is portraying the connection as 'fact' and they are arguing that it is 'not sure', whereas were there the type of smoking gun you describe available, they would be arguing 'surely not'. It is an inherent tension
    within scholarship what level of evidence is sufficient to justify presenting a hypothesis as unquestioned fact, and they are suggesting that the evidence in this case does not rise to that level, that there is sufficient reason for uncertainty that it
    shouldn'e be represented as fact, not that it can be definitively labeled it a falsehood.

    I just wanted to know why Richardson is so sure of his conclusions and work from
    there, but evidently that is even too much for those people I have just mentioned-

    Well, I know this will sound like more backstabbing, but there are reasons that animosity has built up here over the years. Let's just say that you are unlikely to see Mr. Richardson seriously consider the possibility that he might have reached an
    insufficiently-supported conclusion, an attitude that tends not to go over well with others who are equally expert, but disagree. And you are right, it all gets in the way of productive discussion of genealoigcal cunnundra, _by both sides_.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)