Children of John Parker
On first inspection, there appear to be missing children of John Parker and his wife, Elizabeth. There are eight years between the births of John Jr. and Nathaniel Sr. There are an astonishing twenty years between the births of Nathaniel Sr. and Elizabeth! Many children could have been born in these gaps of time. That, in addition to Elizabeth's birth in Spotsylvania, begs the question, "Where were these Parkers from 1700 to 1728?"
I do not have an answer for that question... yet. I do suspect the so-called known birth years of John Parker's children are either incorrect or John Parker had a wife before Elizabeth. I also suspect daughter Elizabeth may not have been born in Spotsylvania. Or, perhaps, all of John and Elizabeth Parker's children were born in Spotsylvania. John Parker did not purchase land in Hampshire County until 1747, after the births of all his children. We do not know when or where John Parker married his wife, Elizabeth, whose surname may be either Bond or Taliaferro.
According to William H. Ansel Jr., author of "Fort John Parker" from his book, Frontier Forts Along the Potomac and its Tributaries:
John Parker died in 1760 before the Indian troubles were over. He left surviving his wife, Elizabeth, who later married Thomas McGuire; four sons, Robert, Richard, Nathaniel and Aaron; two daughters, Elizabeth, who married John Hall, and Catherine, who married William Forman.
Ansel appears to put to rest ideas of additional children... but who is William H. Ansel Jr. and what sort of expertise does he possess? William H. Ansel Jr. was a historian and former treasurer for the state of West Virginia (23 January 1914-13 December 1988). He now lies buried in the Springfield Hill Cemetery in Springfield, West Virginia.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New Wild Goose Chase Part V
Will of John Parker
Hampshire County, Colony of Virginia, 11 November 1760, John Parker's will was proven. Written 28 September 1760, the will stipulated one third of his estate be left to his wife, Elizabeth. The remainder of the estate was to be divided equally among all his living children and one grandchild, Thomas Parker. In the probate record sale, Robert, Nathaniel and "Widow" Parker purchased many items. Robert Parker was executor. I am assuming grandson Thomas Parker was named because his father had already died by this time.
Of John Parker's male children, all but one were known to be living at the time - John Parker, who was born in 1700. Nathaniel, Robert, Aaron, and Richard were all alive in 1760, not dying until the last decade of the 18th century or within the first two decades of the 19th. John Parker's daughter, Elizabeth, born in Spotsylvania, married a John Hall, while younger daughter, Catherine (born 1735), married a William Forman, ruling out one of their children being the Thomas Parker mentioned in the will. (Clearly, the Thomas Parker mentioned in the John Parker Will is not Thomas D. Parker - the latter had yet to be born in 1760.)
Spotsylvania brings us back to the 1880 U.S. census mentioned in Wild Goose Chase Part I. What if the informant stated Mary Ann Belle's father had been born in Spotsylvania (or even Pittsylvania) and the enumerator heard Pennsylvania? Or, perhaps, the informant remembered hearing family members mention Wilson Parker's birth place and heard or wrongly remembered Pennsylvania rather than Pittsylvania or Spotsylvania (both in the Colony of Virginia)?
In my opinion, the DNA evidence hints to such a situation being a very real possibility...
Hampshire County, Colony of Virginia, 11 November 1760, John Parker's will was proven. Written 28 September 1760, the will stipulated one third of his estate be left to his wife, Elizabeth. The remainder of the estate was to be divided equally among all his living children and one grandchild, Thomas Parker. In the probate record sale, Robert, Nathaniel and "Widow" Parker purchased many items. Robert Parker was executor. I am assuming grandson Thomas Parker was named because his father had already died by this time.
Of John Parker's male children, all but one were known to be living at the time - John Parker, who was born in 1700. Nathaniel, Robert, Aaron, and Richard were all alive in 1760, not dying until the last decade of the 18th century or within the first two decades of the 19th. John Parker's daughter, Elizabeth, born in Spotsylvania, married a John Hall, while younger daughter, Catherine (born 1735), married a William Forman, ruling out one of their children being the Thomas Parker mentioned in the will. (Clearly, the Thomas Parker mentioned in the John Parker Will is not Thomas D. Parker - the latter had yet to be born in 1760.)
Spotsylvania brings us back to the 1880 U.S. census mentioned in Wild Goose Chase Part I. What if the informant stated Mary Ann Belle's father had been born in Spotsylvania (or even Pittsylvania) and the enumerator heard Pennsylvania? Or, perhaps, the informant remembered hearing family members mention Wilson Parker's birth place and heard or wrongly remembered Pennsylvania rather than Pittsylvania or Spotsylvania (both in the Colony of Virginia)?
In my opinion, the DNA evidence hints to such a situation being a very real possibility...
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
New Wild Goose Chase Part IV
History of Sittenburne Parish
John Parker was probably born in Old Rappahannock County (Now Essex and Richmond counties), which only existed from 1656-1692. One theory is that his father was Robert Parker, supposedly born 1652 in Sittenburne, a.k.a. Sittingbourne, Parish. However, Sittenburne Parish did not exist separately from Farnham Parish until 1661, so a birth in Sittenburne Parish would not have been possible in 1652. If Robert Parker was born in 1652, he would have been found in the Farnham Parish Records. John Parker, probably born 1680, may be found in the Sittenburne Parish records.
In 1683, Sittenburne Parish divided into Sittenburne Parish and St. Mary's Parish. By 1704, Sittenburne had become St. Anne's Parish and St. Mary's Parish was annexed to Caroline County in 1727. In addition, a portion of Sittenburne Parish lie in Richmond County from 1692 to 1704. Thus records may be found in three separate counties - Richmond, Caroline, and Essex. Further complicating matters, Old Rappahannock County was known as Lancaster County before 1656.
John Parker was probably born in Old Rappahannock County (Now Essex and Richmond counties), which only existed from 1656-1692. One theory is that his father was Robert Parker, supposedly born 1652 in Sittenburne, a.k.a. Sittingbourne, Parish. However, Sittenburne Parish did not exist separately from Farnham Parish until 1661, so a birth in Sittenburne Parish would not have been possible in 1652. If Robert Parker was born in 1652, he would have been found in the Farnham Parish Records. John Parker, probably born 1680, may be found in the Sittenburne Parish records.
In 1683, Sittenburne Parish divided into Sittenburne Parish and St. Mary's Parish. By 1704, Sittenburne had become St. Anne's Parish and St. Mary's Parish was annexed to Caroline County in 1727. In addition, a portion of Sittenburne Parish lie in Richmond County from 1692 to 1704. Thus records may be found in three separate counties - Richmond, Caroline, and Essex. Further complicating matters, Old Rappahannock County was known as Lancaster County before 1656.
Monday, May 18, 2009
New Wild Goose Chase Part III
Parker Family 18
All is not lost, however, without the knowledge of where an ancestor died. We may still find out where that ancestor was born or where his family hailed from. How? Family researchers today have a tool previous generations researching their brick walls did not have: DNA.
Those who are interested may find the Parker Family DNA Project at:
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/parkerdna
Wilson Parker's DNA can be found under "family group 18." His DNA is represented by a direct descendant along an entirely male line, of course. When I was first made aware of this site, "family group 18" consisted of Wilson Parker Sr. and John Parker, the latter of whom is known to have died in Hampshire County, Colony of Virginia, as his will was proven 11 November 1760 and written 28 September 1760. His heirs, including his wife, are named in the will. Son Robert is the executor.
It may be of interest to note that the family and descendants of Wilson Parker Sr. have long set down the tradition that Wilson Parker Sr. was born in Virginia. Of further interest is that, as of February 2009, "family group 18" has grown by two more ancestors - one (Nathaniel Parker) who is known to have been born in the Colony of Virginia and one (Thomas D. Parker) who, like Wilson Parker Sr., was born either in Pennsylvania or Virginia. I have been able to link Nathaniel Parker to John Parker's line. I have not been able to link Wilson Sr. or John D. Parker as of yet.
Nathaniel Parker (1730-1803) is the son of Nathaniel Parker (1707/1708-1800), who in turn is the son of John Parker (d. 1760 in Hampshire, Virginia). In other words, he is the grandson of John Parker, so descendants of Nathaniel are descendants of John. Their DNA should match up perfectly... or near perfectly.
The difference between the Nathaniel Parker DNA (and presumably, the John Parker DNA as well) and the DNA of Thomas D. Parker's descendant is DYS Marker Number 576 - Nathaniel's is 19 and Thomas D.'s is 18. Wilson Parker and Nathaniel Parker share the same DYS Marker Number 576 - i.e., 19. Wilson and Nathaniel differ by DYS Marker Number 442 - Wilson's is 12, Nathaniel's 13. Interestingly enough, Thomas D. shares Marker Number 442 in common with Wilson Parker, so that Thomas D. actually differs from Nathaniel by two markers, not one. Wilson differs from Nathaniel by only one marker - DYS Marker 442. Genetic distance between Wilson and Nathaniel Parker is one step. Since these are 37 marker tests, this means the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) has a 50% probability of being within the last four generations, a 90% probability of being within the last eight generations, and a 95% probability of being within the last 10 generations. Wilson Parker is four generations from the person tested. There are roughly three generations between Wilson Parker and Nathaniel Parker and Nathaniel Parker is three generations from John Parker, which brings us approximately to the tenth generation. Unless the mutation of marker 442 occurred in the generation or two after John Parker, the MRCA is an ancestor of John Parker.
All is not lost, however, without the knowledge of where an ancestor died. We may still find out where that ancestor was born or where his family hailed from. How? Family researchers today have a tool previous generations researching their brick walls did not have: DNA.
Those who are interested may find the Parker Family DNA Project at:
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/parkerdna
Wilson Parker's DNA can be found under "family group 18." His DNA is represented by a direct descendant along an entirely male line, of course. When I was first made aware of this site, "family group 18" consisted of Wilson Parker Sr. and John Parker, the latter of whom is known to have died in Hampshire County, Colony of Virginia, as his will was proven 11 November 1760 and written 28 September 1760. His heirs, including his wife, are named in the will. Son Robert is the executor.
It may be of interest to note that the family and descendants of Wilson Parker Sr. have long set down the tradition that Wilson Parker Sr. was born in Virginia. Of further interest is that, as of February 2009, "family group 18" has grown by two more ancestors - one (Nathaniel Parker) who is known to have been born in the Colony of Virginia and one (Thomas D. Parker) who, like Wilson Parker Sr., was born either in Pennsylvania or Virginia. I have been able to link Nathaniel Parker to John Parker's line. I have not been able to link Wilson Sr. or John D. Parker as of yet.
Nathaniel Parker (1730-1803) is the son of Nathaniel Parker (1707/1708-1800), who in turn is the son of John Parker (d. 1760 in Hampshire, Virginia). In other words, he is the grandson of John Parker, so descendants of Nathaniel are descendants of John. Their DNA should match up perfectly... or near perfectly.
The difference between the Nathaniel Parker DNA (and presumably, the John Parker DNA as well) and the DNA of Thomas D. Parker's descendant is DYS Marker Number 576 - Nathaniel's is 19 and Thomas D.'s is 18. Wilson Parker and Nathaniel Parker share the same DYS Marker Number 576 - i.e., 19. Wilson and Nathaniel differ by DYS Marker Number 442 - Wilson's is 12, Nathaniel's 13. Interestingly enough, Thomas D. shares Marker Number 442 in common with Wilson Parker, so that Thomas D. actually differs from Nathaniel by two markers, not one. Wilson differs from Nathaniel by only one marker - DYS Marker 442. Genetic distance between Wilson and Nathaniel Parker is one step. Since these are 37 marker tests, this means the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) has a 50% probability of being within the last four generations, a 90% probability of being within the last eight generations, and a 95% probability of being within the last 10 generations. Wilson Parker is four generations from the person tested. There are roughly three generations between Wilson Parker and Nathaniel Parker and Nathaniel Parker is three generations from John Parker, which brings us approximately to the tenth generation. Unless the mutation of marker 442 occurred in the generation or two after John Parker, the MRCA is an ancestor of John Parker.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
New Wild Goose Chase Part II
A Mysterious Birth and a Mysterious Death
The aforementioned foray into logic is the tool that will be used in what may ultimately prove a wild goose chase. Its value, however, lies in the fact that such arguments eliminate possibilities and whittle the field of possible answers down to more manageable quantities. Whittling possibilities down is important in situations such as these, when the possible places of an ancestor's birth (or death) encompass an entire country or, perhaps, the much larger geographic areas of several countries and even continents.
Such problems, when confronted by amateur genealogists, are unfortunate indeed when we are confronted with the necessity of "saturation research." Unfortunately, saturation research (and prosopography) is what we are faced with if we have only an inkling of what state an ancestor was born in and we have no death data to point us in the right direction. More information is needed before tackling such an impossibly enormous project, a project that would likely take several lifetimes to complete and may lead in the end to having no more answers than when we started the research.
The most troubling aspect in the case of Wilson Parker Sr. is that he last shows up in the 1849 Minnesota State Census living next door to W.C.D. Harrington, his son-in-law. He is nowhere to be found in the 1850 U.S. Federal Census. Do we then assume he died?
No. If he were dead, we might be able to find probate or other death records that would help us in our search, but there are none in the case of Wilson Parker Sr. So we cannot assume he died in Minnesota before the 1850 census was taken. We would need further proof.
There is another problem with assuming Wilson Parker Sr. died before the census date in 1850: the state of Iowa took censuses in 1852 and 1854. We know that a couple of W.C.D.'s and Mary Ann Belle's children were born in Iowa. In fact, in 1852, the Harringtons are found in the Iowa Census living in Clinton County. Then, in 1854, Wilson Parker shows up living next door to John Terrell. However, it is unknown if this "Wilson Parker" is Wilson Jesse Parker, son of Wilson Parker Sr. and brother-in-law of John Terrell or Wilson Parker Sr. himself. Perhaps it is a third "Wilson Parker" altogether and merely a coincidence. In any case, the net result is that we do not know when or where the elder Wilson Parker died. So we cannot yet look for headstones and cemetery information, which might tell us where Wilson Parker Sr. was born and when. Furthermore, there may be no record of his death and burial if he was laid to rest on his own land. Not everyone was buried in an official cemetery and, depending upon the circumstances of his death, Wilson Parker Sr. may not have been laid to rest at all. What if our ancestor went out hunting one day, got lost in the woods, was mauled to death by a bear and his body never found? He would have "gone missing" and may have, eventually, been "presumed dead."
Basically, in the case of Wilson Parker Sr., we know neither where he was born nor where he died and that is the crux of the matter. Nor does Wilson Parker Sr. show up in any census following the 1854 Iowa Census. Nor is there a valid reason to assume he died in Iowa. The Wilson Parker enumerated in the 1854 census may have been Wilson Parker Sr.'s son or a third, unrelated, man. The Harringtons were in 1850 enumerated in Washington County, Minnesota living near the same neighbors as in the 1849 state census - the only neighbor missing is Wilson Parker. We know the Wilson Parker that had been living in Minnesota in 1849 is not Wilson Jesse Parker because census data show Wilson Jesse Parker to be living in Hancock County in the state of Illinois with brothers-in-law John, Josiah and William Terrell. In 1849, Wilson Jesse Parker married Rebecca Terrell in Hancock County, Illinois, placing Wilson Jesse in Illinois in 1849 and 1850.
Of course, it is possible that Wilson Jesse Parker married Rebecca Terrell in 1849 in Hancock, Illinois, then moved to Washington County, Minnesota in the same year and then returned to Hancock, Illinois in time to be enumerated in the 1850 U.S. census. It is also possible that Rebecca (Terrell) Parker managed to give birth to their daughter, Mary Ann Parker, in Illinois in 1854 and the family later in that same year moved to Lee County, Iowa in time to be enumerated in the 1854 Iowa Census (there are two males and two females and one man of voting age and one male in or a veteran of the military) and then return to Hancock, Illinois just in the nick of time to be enumerated yet again in the 1855 Illinois State Census. Then, in 1856, son, David Parker, is born in Hancock County, Illinois. By 1858, Wilson Jesse Parker had died in Hancock County, Illinois. If the Wilson Parker enumerated in Minnesota and Iowa are both Wilson Jesse Parker, Wilson Jesse Parker certainly had a strange penchant for moving around the country and returning to live in Hancock, Illinois every year!
On the other hand, Wilson Parker Sr. was a veteran of the Black Hawk War, having served in McHenry's Brigade of Spies, an argument in favor of his having moved to Iowa. There were two females and one male in the Wilson Parker household in 1849, an argument in favor of Wilson Parker Sr., since Wilson Jesse Parker had just married Rebecca Terrell and had no children at that point. Suppose the two females in the 1849 household were not children, but related to each other in some other way?
The simple explanation is oftentimes the correct explanation. In our case, the simple explanation is Wilson Jesse Parker never left Hancock, Illinois and the Wilson Parker enumerated in the 1849 and 1854 censuses in Wilson Parker Sr. or another man or men entirely. What does this mean for our brick wall? What this means is that Wilson Parker Sr. either died in Illinois or died in Minnesota or died in Iowa or died in an unknown territory we have yet to discover. A much simpler explanation would be that Wilson Parker Sr. never left the state of Illinois and died either in White or Madison counties.
The aforementioned foray into logic is the tool that will be used in what may ultimately prove a wild goose chase. Its value, however, lies in the fact that such arguments eliminate possibilities and whittle the field of possible answers down to more manageable quantities. Whittling possibilities down is important in situations such as these, when the possible places of an ancestor's birth (or death) encompass an entire country or, perhaps, the much larger geographic areas of several countries and even continents.
Such problems, when confronted by amateur genealogists, are unfortunate indeed when we are confronted with the necessity of "saturation research." Unfortunately, saturation research (and prosopography) is what we are faced with if we have only an inkling of what state an ancestor was born in and we have no death data to point us in the right direction. More information is needed before tackling such an impossibly enormous project, a project that would likely take several lifetimes to complete and may lead in the end to having no more answers than when we started the research.
The most troubling aspect in the case of Wilson Parker Sr. is that he last shows up in the 1849 Minnesota State Census living next door to W.C.D. Harrington, his son-in-law. He is nowhere to be found in the 1850 U.S. Federal Census. Do we then assume he died?
No. If he were dead, we might be able to find probate or other death records that would help us in our search, but there are none in the case of Wilson Parker Sr. So we cannot assume he died in Minnesota before the 1850 census was taken. We would need further proof.
There is another problem with assuming Wilson Parker Sr. died before the census date in 1850: the state of Iowa took censuses in 1852 and 1854. We know that a couple of W.C.D.'s and Mary Ann Belle's children were born in Iowa. In fact, in 1852, the Harringtons are found in the Iowa Census living in Clinton County. Then, in 1854, Wilson Parker shows up living next door to John Terrell. However, it is unknown if this "Wilson Parker" is Wilson Jesse Parker, son of Wilson Parker Sr. and brother-in-law of John Terrell or Wilson Parker Sr. himself. Perhaps it is a third "Wilson Parker" altogether and merely a coincidence. In any case, the net result is that we do not know when or where the elder Wilson Parker died. So we cannot yet look for headstones and cemetery information, which might tell us where Wilson Parker Sr. was born and when. Furthermore, there may be no record of his death and burial if he was laid to rest on his own land. Not everyone was buried in an official cemetery and, depending upon the circumstances of his death, Wilson Parker Sr. may not have been laid to rest at all. What if our ancestor went out hunting one day, got lost in the woods, was mauled to death by a bear and his body never found? He would have "gone missing" and may have, eventually, been "presumed dead."
Basically, in the case of Wilson Parker Sr., we know neither where he was born nor where he died and that is the crux of the matter. Nor does Wilson Parker Sr. show up in any census following the 1854 Iowa Census. Nor is there a valid reason to assume he died in Iowa. The Wilson Parker enumerated in the 1854 census may have been Wilson Parker Sr.'s son or a third, unrelated, man. The Harringtons were in 1850 enumerated in Washington County, Minnesota living near the same neighbors as in the 1849 state census - the only neighbor missing is Wilson Parker. We know the Wilson Parker that had been living in Minnesota in 1849 is not Wilson Jesse Parker because census data show Wilson Jesse Parker to be living in Hancock County in the state of Illinois with brothers-in-law John, Josiah and William Terrell. In 1849, Wilson Jesse Parker married Rebecca Terrell in Hancock County, Illinois, placing Wilson Jesse in Illinois in 1849 and 1850.
Of course, it is possible that Wilson Jesse Parker married Rebecca Terrell in 1849 in Hancock, Illinois, then moved to Washington County, Minnesota in the same year and then returned to Hancock, Illinois in time to be enumerated in the 1850 U.S. census. It is also possible that Rebecca (Terrell) Parker managed to give birth to their daughter, Mary Ann Parker, in Illinois in 1854 and the family later in that same year moved to Lee County, Iowa in time to be enumerated in the 1854 Iowa Census (there are two males and two females and one man of voting age and one male in or a veteran of the military) and then return to Hancock, Illinois just in the nick of time to be enumerated yet again in the 1855 Illinois State Census. Then, in 1856, son, David Parker, is born in Hancock County, Illinois. By 1858, Wilson Jesse Parker had died in Hancock County, Illinois. If the Wilson Parker enumerated in Minnesota and Iowa are both Wilson Jesse Parker, Wilson Jesse Parker certainly had a strange penchant for moving around the country and returning to live in Hancock, Illinois every year!
On the other hand, Wilson Parker Sr. was a veteran of the Black Hawk War, having served in McHenry's Brigade of Spies, an argument in favor of his having moved to Iowa. There were two females and one male in the Wilson Parker household in 1849, an argument in favor of Wilson Parker Sr., since Wilson Jesse Parker had just married Rebecca Terrell and had no children at that point. Suppose the two females in the 1849 household were not children, but related to each other in some other way?
The simple explanation is oftentimes the correct explanation. In our case, the simple explanation is Wilson Jesse Parker never left Hancock, Illinois and the Wilson Parker enumerated in the 1849 and 1854 censuses in Wilson Parker Sr. or another man or men entirely. What does this mean for our brick wall? What this means is that Wilson Parker Sr. either died in Illinois or died in Minnesota or died in Iowa or died in an unknown territory we have yet to discover. A much simpler explanation would be that Wilson Parker Sr. never left the state of Illinois and died either in White or Madison counties.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
New Wild Goose Chase Part I
Brick walls. We all have them among our ancestors. Wilson Parker Sr. is mine and, if you are reading this, maybe yours too.
According to the 1880 U.S. Census for Tainter, Dunn, Wisconsin, Mary Ann Belle (Parker) Harrington's father was born in Pennsylvania. What kind of evidence is this? It is tantamount to the children's game of "telephone." What begins as one statement often transforms into a completely different statement on the other end of the line. In our particular case, the results are particularly dubious because the birth information provided for Mary Ann Belle's husband's parents - a known data set - is incorrect. The 1880 census indicates William C.D. Harrington's parents were both born in England when, in fact, neither his mother nor his father were born in England! (The person who provided the information to the census taker may not have been a member of the family.)
The information in this census serves as a perfect illustration of why census results in general should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when they refer to events far removed in time from the actual census date (nearly 100 years in the case of Wilson Parker's birth). In truth, the same is true of any data the family researcher may come across and is not limited to the U.S. Census.
Aside
Speaking of grains of salt, its, many times, far easier to prove a given statement by contradiction than by a direct attack. In other words, one looks to prove a statement that would lead to a logical contradiction, such as ".... Therefore, Henry Jones was born in the town of Duxbury in Massachusetts and Henry Jones was born in the town of Westmoreland in New Hampshire," a logical impossibility if one is talking about a unique individual, thus proving the statement contrary to one set out to prove true.
To simplify matters, such a "proof" looks something like this:
According to the 1880 U.S. Census for Tainter, Dunn, Wisconsin, Mary Ann Belle (Parker) Harrington's father was born in Pennsylvania. What kind of evidence is this? It is tantamount to the children's game of "telephone." What begins as one statement often transforms into a completely different statement on the other end of the line. In our particular case, the results are particularly dubious because the birth information provided for Mary Ann Belle's husband's parents - a known data set - is incorrect. The 1880 census indicates William C.D. Harrington's parents were both born in England when, in fact, neither his mother nor his father were born in England! (The person who provided the information to the census taker may not have been a member of the family.)
The information in this census serves as a perfect illustration of why census results in general should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when they refer to events far removed in time from the actual census date (nearly 100 years in the case of Wilson Parker's birth). In truth, the same is true of any data the family researcher may come across and is not limited to the U.S. Census.
Aside
Speaking of grains of salt, its, many times, far easier to prove a given statement by contradiction than by a direct attack. In other words, one looks to prove a statement that would lead to a logical contradiction, such as ".... Therefore, Henry Jones was born in the town of Duxbury in Massachusetts and Henry Jones was born in the town of Westmoreland in New Hampshire," a logical impossibility if one is talking about a unique individual, thus proving the statement contrary to one set out to prove true.
To simplify matters, such a "proof" looks something like this:
Suppose A is true [where "not A"=B]...
Then C and D are true.
But C and D cannot both be true.
Therefore, "not A."
Thus B is true.
The argument by contradiction, despite its seemingly unnecessary mental gymnastics in the eyes of those not versed in philosophical logic or mathematical proof, is, in practice, quite simple to construct... in most cases. End aside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)