GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-06 > 0833901430


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Yaroslav I & Ingegerda
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:17:10 GMT


In a previous article, (Russell Martin) says:

>It was a statement of opinion. But I do think that when we're talking
>about the 9th and 10th centuries, and when the source for the link is a
>lone, suspect chronicle account written in the early 12th century, the
>burden of proof ought to be on the positive argument, not the negative
>one. That is, given these problems, I find it prudent to assume (if
>not, indeed, conclude) that Riurik and (St.) Igor were not related.

Your logic breaks down here. If you have insufficient data to conclude
that the two are related, it is still invalid to assume, let alone
conclude, that they are not. You can only conclude that there is
insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. (The same mistake made
when people conclude that a not (proven) guilty verdict is the same as
innocence.) You are free to entertain the various possibilities, but
no conclusion, or even assumption, is warrented.

Todd

This thread: