Dear TAF:
Thank you for your offer of a more detailed critique,
although I sense your negative thinking is of little
use.
I stress your argument is absurd because it lacks
meaningful utility. We are fortunate that you were not
employed as the Wright Bros shop manager - we would
still not be flying.
Research demands creativity, not negative thinking.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mai ... _spam.html
GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest Vol 2 Issue 145
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest Vol 2 Issue 145
Miffed Eyewash...
DSH
"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2996.1171043032.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
DSH
"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2996.1171043032.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear TAF:
Thank you for your offer of a more detailed critique,
although I sense your negative thinking is of little
use.
I stress your argument is absurd because it lacks
meaningful utility. We are fortunate that you were not
employed as the Wright Bros shop manager - we would
still not be flying.
Research demands creativity, not negative thinking.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest Vol 2 Issue 145
In message of 9 Feb, paul bulkley <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote:
But the fundamental point about all research and the theories produced
to account for the facts is that all it takes is one fact to upset both
the greatest and the slightest theory.
So real creativity must fit all he facts, not just a few of them.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Dear TAF:
Thank you for your offer of a more detailed critique,
although I sense your negative thinking is of little
use.
I stress your argument is absurd because it lacks
meaningful utility. We are fortunate that you were not
employed as the Wright Bros shop manager - we would
still not be flying.
Research demands creativity, not negative thinking.
But the fundamental point about all research and the theories produced
to account for the facts is that all it takes is one fact to upset both
the greatest and the slightest theory.
So real creativity must fit all he facts, not just a few of them.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
taf
Re: Bulkley Ancestors in Normandy 1050-1150
On Feb 9, 9:16 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, not very detailed. My argument was that one should be
consistent, not selective, in acceptance of flexible spelling. That
while experts can be wrong, a non-expert might not be in the best
position to place their own wishes above the conclusions of the
expert. That deciding what you want to be true and then using ad hoc
hypotheses to favor that interpretation and place a more obvious
alternative into disfavor is not, perhaps, the best way of doing
genealogy. That if you want to find the origin of the Bulkeleys, it
is most productive to trace the ones you know back, rather than
looking across time for any family whose name begins with a B and has
a K somewhere later, then concocting scenarios under which they could
possibly represent the same kindred. The utility of these seem clear
to me, so perhaps you could describe the fault you find with each,
specifically.
You are drawing together different families with different types of
surnames. You are ignoring differences in their spelling and
pronounciation, and accepting just vague similarity as being
indicative of a connection, while at the same time suggesting that the
difference between Bulceleia and Bulkeley is hugely significant.
(Further, you are willing to conclude that the modern surname Bulkeley
connects with Bulceleia, but utterly reject that the modern town name
of Bulkeley connects with Bulceleia, even though the only known
occurance of Bulceleia is in a document composed within two miles of
modern Bulkeley.) You are saying that Irish Buckelers cannot be from
Bulkeley because Cheshire was underdeveloped and overrun by Welshmen,
and yet you have no problem identifying Buckeler with the Bulceleia
which appears in a Cheshire document from nearby Bulkeley. You are
willing to identify far-flung Irish (and Norman) families with
Cheshire Bulceleia, but unwilling to link Bulceleia with Bulkeley, two
miles away. You insist that experts might be wrong, yet you have no
expertise with which to evaluate their conclusion, and no real reason
to doubt it. In short, you are spending all of your efforts trying
unsuccessfully to discredit the most obvious solution to your problem
for no apparent reason other than that you don't want it to be true.
You call me negative because I want to make the obvious, positive
conclusion that Bulkeley _is_ Bulceleia. You consider yourself
positively inclined because you are making the most contorted
arguments to negate this clear connection. A quite Orwellian use of
language.
If you were working there, we would sure not be flying. Oh, you would
have an "airplane", but it would be big and beautiful, made of solid
gold without all those distracting things like wings and propellors to
interfere with its artistic design. It would, of course, be totally
unable to get off the ground except by catapult, but it would sure
look pretty and who needs to listen to all of those negative people
who would turn it into something ugly, light and functional.
Not exactly. Research requires a ballance between creativity and
critical thinking, such that time is not wasted on whimsical pursuits
of fantastical solutions to simple problems with obvious ones.
Research also demands that one draw the conclusion from the data,
rather than drawing the conclusion desired and then selectively
interpreting the data according to how well it conforms to the desired
conclusion.
taf
Dear TAF:
Thank you for your offer of a more detailed critique,
although I sense your negative thinking is of little
use.
I stress your argument is absurd because it lacks
meaningful utility.
Again, not very detailed. My argument was that one should be
consistent, not selective, in acceptance of flexible spelling. That
while experts can be wrong, a non-expert might not be in the best
position to place their own wishes above the conclusions of the
expert. That deciding what you want to be true and then using ad hoc
hypotheses to favor that interpretation and place a more obvious
alternative into disfavor is not, perhaps, the best way of doing
genealogy. That if you want to find the origin of the Bulkeleys, it
is most productive to trace the ones you know back, rather than
looking across time for any family whose name begins with a B and has
a K somewhere later, then concocting scenarios under which they could
possibly represent the same kindred. The utility of these seem clear
to me, so perhaps you could describe the fault you find with each,
specifically.
You are drawing together different families with different types of
surnames. You are ignoring differences in their spelling and
pronounciation, and accepting just vague similarity as being
indicative of a connection, while at the same time suggesting that the
difference between Bulceleia and Bulkeley is hugely significant.
(Further, you are willing to conclude that the modern surname Bulkeley
connects with Bulceleia, but utterly reject that the modern town name
of Bulkeley connects with Bulceleia, even though the only known
occurance of Bulceleia is in a document composed within two miles of
modern Bulkeley.) You are saying that Irish Buckelers cannot be from
Bulkeley because Cheshire was underdeveloped and overrun by Welshmen,
and yet you have no problem identifying Buckeler with the Bulceleia
which appears in a Cheshire document from nearby Bulkeley. You are
willing to identify far-flung Irish (and Norman) families with
Cheshire Bulceleia, but unwilling to link Bulceleia with Bulkeley, two
miles away. You insist that experts might be wrong, yet you have no
expertise with which to evaluate their conclusion, and no real reason
to doubt it. In short, you are spending all of your efforts trying
unsuccessfully to discredit the most obvious solution to your problem
for no apparent reason other than that you don't want it to be true.
You call me negative because I want to make the obvious, positive
conclusion that Bulkeley _is_ Bulceleia. You consider yourself
positively inclined because you are making the most contorted
arguments to negate this clear connection. A quite Orwellian use of
language.
We are fortunate that you were not
employed as the Wright Bros shop manager - we would
still not be flying.
If you were working there, we would sure not be flying. Oh, you would
have an "airplane", but it would be big and beautiful, made of solid
gold without all those distracting things like wings and propellors to
interfere with its artistic design. It would, of course, be totally
unable to get off the ground except by catapult, but it would sure
look pretty and who needs to listen to all of those negative people
who would turn it into something ugly, light and functional.
Research demands creativity, not negative thinking.
Not exactly. Research requires a ballance between creativity and
critical thinking, such that time is not wasted on whimsical pursuits
of fantastical solutions to simple problems with obvious ones.
Research also demands that one draw the conclusion from the data,
rather than drawing the conclusion desired and then selectively
interpreting the data according to how well it conforms to the desired
conclusion.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bulkley Ancestors in Normandy 1050-1150
In article <1171049746.479651.91500@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
You can flog me later, but I wouldn't say that research 'requires' this.
Genealogy is full of people willing to spend infinite man-hours on pet
theories, even if critical thinking would steer them away from a
likely-barren theory (e.g. if it flies in the face of methodological
consensus on some fundamental point). There's no rule that CW-defying
goose chases will never succeed: serendipity may be waiting for people
looking for the wrong things, or looking at things for the wrong reason.
A globe full of amateurs with wishful-thinking research agendas will
certainly yield *some* hits. Of course, more objective progress would
be made, in the aggregate, if all the wishful thinkers would learn
critical thinking and prioritize leads and approaches better. But those
who are immune to such improvement are welcome to keep on doing what
they do.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
Research demands creativity, not negative thinking.
Not exactly. Research requires a ballance between creativity and
critical thinking, such that time is not wasted on whimsical pursuits
of fantastical solutions to simple problems with obvious ones.
You can flog me later, but I wouldn't say that research 'requires' this.
Genealogy is full of people willing to spend infinite man-hours on pet
theories, even if critical thinking would steer them away from a
likely-barren theory (e.g. if it flies in the face of methodological
consensus on some fundamental point). There's no rule that CW-defying
goose chases will never succeed: serendipity may be waiting for people
looking for the wrong things, or looking at things for the wrong reason.
A globe full of amateurs with wishful-thinking research agendas will
certainly yield *some* hits. Of course, more objective progress would
be made, in the aggregate, if all the wishful thinkers would learn
critical thinking and prioritize leads and approaches better. But those
who are immune to such improvement are welcome to keep on doing what
they do.
Research also demands that one draw the conclusion from the data,
rather than drawing the conclusion desired and then selectively
interpreting the data according to how well it conforms to the desired
conclusion.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net