Theos-Talk Archives (May 2004 Message tt00160)

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> Since the original statement is based on 
> information that is not scientifically or logically arrived at, and 
> therefore, not claimed as a "known" fact. 
Then why did so many people get angry at me when I pointed that the 
evidence was inconclusive? Why are several people saying that simply 
making the statement that he had a copy of the Secret Doctrine 
establishes it as fact, until someone disproves it? And, unless I have 
proof that he did NOT read the Secret Doctrine, I have no right to bring 
up the possibility that he didn't?

> If you do not believe the presumptive 
> conclusion, then the burden of "disproof" lies with you. If you can't do that, then 
> all you can do is say is, "I don't believe it." But, according to your 
> criteria, you would be saying, "Einstein did not read the Secret Doctrine." 
There is a third option, which you are ignoring: "It is inconclusive 
whether or not Einstein read the Secret Doctrine." And, there are 
degrees of uncertainty within that.

Bart