Theos-Talk Archives (July 2005 Message tt00128)

In their book "The Modern Researcher," the historians 
Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff comment:

"If you receive a letter from a relative that [1] bears 
what looks like her signature, that [2] refers to 
family matters you and she commonly discuss, and that 
[3] was postmarked in the city where she lives, the 
probability is very great that she wrote it."

"The CONTRARY hypothesis would need at least as many 
opposing signs [of evidence] in order to take root in 
your mind---though the possibility of forgery. . .is 
always there." caps added.

Please note that in this example the hypothesis that 
the letter is really written by your relative is 
supported by three positive signs of evidence. 

Now a "skeptic" [maybe like Konstantin :) ] might argue:

"Isn't it possible that [1] the relative's signature was forged, 
and, isn't it possible that [2] some 'forger' was somehow privy to 
family matters, and, furthermore, isn't it possible that [3] the 
forger could have mailed the letter in the city where your relative 
lives to throw you off the track?"

And if you objected to such speculation, the critic might respond:

"Prove to me that the three statements, I just listed, aren't 
possible. Didn't Barzun and Graff admit that the possibility of 
forgery. . . is always there?"

But one should point out that possibilities and plausibilities [at 
step 2 in the Four Step Process of Discovery] are not to be confused 
with probabilities [at step 4]. Barzun and Graffe clearly enunciate 
an important dictum for the researcher:

"The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . . .No matter 
how possible or plausible the author's conjecture [at step 2 in the 
4 step process] it cannot be accepted as truth [at step 4] if he has 
only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it. Truth rests 
not on possibility or plausibility but on probability. Probability 
means the balance of chances that, given such and such evidence [at 
step 3], the event it records happened in a certain way; or, in 
other cases, that a supposed event did not in fact take place." 

If the skeptic has no evidence, then his hypothesis is, in effect, 
null and void.

Remember what Barzun and Graff said above:

"The CONTRARY hypothesis would need at least as many opposing signs 
[of evidence] in order to take root in your mind...."

Unfortunately, far too many persons become fixated on possibilities 
(IMAGINING various scenarios) and NEVER PROGRESS beyond to 
considering probabilities in the light of SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE. 

Many of these persons FIXATE and speculate on various possibilities 
at step 2---hoping that others will assume that something has been 
proven or disproven by such rhetoric and/or believing that they have 
actually proven or disproven something.

See the chart on the Four Step Process:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/history2.htm

see also:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/history5.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc