Re: The Count of Vienne, again
WJho...@aol.com
However he did not bother to address the problems that have been presented
with that. So his theory is weak and ill-conceived at best. And as such,
when a more comprehensive view of the situation is presented, it must give
way. He has retreated from some of his other theories, and I expect he would
retreat from this one as well.
I suggest it's up to those who would support such a silly theory to provide
evidence *for* that support. When it's challenged, as you know being a
scientist, the burden of proof is not on the challenger, but on the
challenged. The support I've seen so far is easily dismissed. The evidence for
Charles being illegitimate is not so easy to dismiss.
taf
> I acknowledge that Settipani thought the marriage might have occurred.
> However he did not bother to address the problems that have been presented
> with that. So his theory is weak and ill-conceived at best.
Given that he didn't address the problems, how can we know how weak or
ill-conceived his theory is?
> And as such,
> when a more comprehensive view of the situation is presented, it must give
> way. He has retreated from some of his other theories, and I expect he would
> retreat from this one as well.
>
> I suggest it's up to those who would support such a silly theory to provide
> evidence *for* that support. When it's challenged, as you know being a
> scientist, the burden of proof is not on the challenger, but on the
> challenged. The support I've seen so far is easily dismissed. The evidence for
> Charles being illegitimate is not so easy to dismiss.
Burden of proof is not quite so simple as this but anyhow, placing the
burden of proof on someone not participating in the discussion is not
likely to move things forward.
Likewise, historical reality is one thing, consensus is another. If
you want to call a particular version the historical truth and present
a body of evidence to support it, that's great, helpful even.
However, if you want to call any particular opinion consensus, that is
an entirely different argument, involving the demonstration that the
majority of modern scholars agree with the position, right or wrong.
I am not saying that the case presented by Peter and yourself isn't
correct, just that it isn't consensus.
taf