You mistakenly seem to think that I'm advocating on behalf of Wilson. I don't think that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that any one of them was responsible for drawing the 5 plans or the one that CBM approved (of) and the Board approved and got built. I don't see much point in advocating a most likely scenario. So, I'm not going to try to answer your challenges about evidence supporting Wilson and Merion in 1910 or early 1911, because simply put, there is insufficient information to draw the conclusion.
Bryan you go in and out of advocating for Wilson and/or Merion, don't you? And don't you often do so "with insufficient information to draw the conclusion." For example, above you wrote:
"Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things. It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby." Isn't this speculating, and advocating, for a certain reading of the facts? Do you really think that your conclusion that they were doing "something, or a lot of things" is justified by your statement, "It was after all their baby?" Because I don't. And rather than asking you to tell me who you think routed the course, I was simply asking you to back up your speculation.
Your methodology of "likelihood" satisfies you that you are closest to the truth. Others interpretations of the available data suggests to them that they are closest to the truth. I doubt that you guys will ever coalesce on one truth, absent some new information, and probably not even then.
I thought we were on the same page regarding methodology, but apparently we are not, especially when it comes to likelihoods. To review, not long ago you were criticizing me because you thought I was stating things with certainty that I might not have known with absolute certainty. Now you seem to be critiquing me because I am not stating my positions with absolute certainty. I understand the first criticism and have endeavored to try to avoid certainties where none can possibly exist, but this second line of critique is a bit harder to figure.
First, absolute certainty may be the ultimate goal, but it is also an impossible standard. In other words, if I said I knew for certain (like Mike constantly does) I'd be wrong. This Socratic duality has long formed the foundation for philosophy, science, and almost every other intellectual pursuit. No matter what we think we know for certain, there is always a possibility we will learn something which will reshape our views. But this impossibility of absolute certainty ought not dissuade us from trying to figure things out, and it ought not to dissuade us from sorting through various theories and explanations and
throwing out that which doesn't make sense and
keeping that which does, questioning all the while and trying to come up with relative certainties.
Second, you are rather selective and one sided in your application of your standards. In fact it seems you have different standards for yourself.
1. When it comes to Merion's involvement supposed planning, you seem okay with all sorts of speculation and basing your analysis on what is "likely" or "unlikely." Like above when you write that suggesting Merion only had limited involvement in the planning in 1910 "seems very unlikely to me." Or in the same post when you wrote,
"It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby." 2. When it comes to me, what is "most likely" or "unlikely" are apparently no longer good enough.
The reality is that what is likely and unlikely is really all any of us can offer, and that is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion. I don't agree with what you think is "very unlikely" and
I can explain why. You are free to do the same.
We've discussed my theories at great lengths my theories, and whether they are reasonable, supported, and likely and/or unlikely. But we haven't even begun to discuss the alternate theories. Isn't about time those theories were challenged with the same vigor as mine have been challenged.
Let me put it this way . . . Given your claim to not have a horse in this race, I understand why you don't want to back up the speculation that it was Merion who came up with the plans for the "many courses" Merion reportedly tried to lay out on the new land.
But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?Because no one has. And I don't think anyone can. But I'd like to see them try. And I think they should be held to the same standards of proof and detail to which I have been held. I want to know the
who, when, what, where, why, and how of the routing.
Let's start with the laying out many different course on the new land. Who did it, when did it occur, how did they do it, why did they try it, and why were there many routings, and who came up with the plans, and all the same questions about those plans, etc.
Everytime I ask questions looking for some support for the other side's position I get silence, followed by various posters threatening to leave the discussion. Why can't you all be honest and admit that you cannot even begin to support your affirmative theories?