Theos-Talk Archives (July 2005 Message tt00109)

Konstantin,

You write:

"Assuming the date of marriage of his parents to be true, 
we MAY SUSPECT that Leadbeater was born out of marriage, and to 
provide him a better career (or legacy rights) the parents (or 
adopters, it they really weren't parents at all) bribed some 
officers to register him on the later date." caps added

But we could also say that we MAY SUSPECT that Leadbeater
was NOT "born out of marriage"....

And we have two documents to support that....

What historical documents do you have to support your
suspicion?

I would suggest you read my essay titled:

"Possibility versus Probability" at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm

It seems to me that you are simply indulging in
mere speculation...isn't it possible that Leadbeater
was born out of wedlock and isn't it possible that
his parents bribed an official.....and isn't it possible...

In my article pay especially close attention to the section that 
begins with the following paragraph:

"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."

Barzun and Graff in their work THE MODERN RESEARCHER state:

"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." 
Caps added.

...GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE....

You have no evidence.............only possibilities.

Throughout all three of his books on HPB and the Masters, K. Paul 
Johnson also indulges in the same kind of speculation and constantly 
violates the historical rule of "Give evidence." 

In his Theosophical History review of Johnson's THE MASTERS 
REVEALED, Dr. John Algeo mentions Johnson's penchant for
speculation spinning and cites an excellent example. In a single 
paragraph, Johnson attempts to make a connection between Ranbir 
Singh and Morya using the following "possibility-plausibility" 
qualifiers: "it is not unlikely . . . may have . . . it seems 
possible that . . . perhaps . . . would have made . . . could have 
found . . . may have made . . . might have been . . ." (The Masters 
Revealed, p. 136) 

Daniel
http://hpb.cc