> So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence
This is what I am saying. Can you provide me with conclusive evidence that you are not a member of Hell’s Angels? Because if you can’t, there’s always a doubt about your character… This is why the burden of broof is on the one making the claim.
It works the same in historical research. Basically you have hearsay and a tavern rumour, but that is hardly any evidence of anything. This is why biographers and real historians hardly discuss it. There’s no proof and besides, it kinda is not that interesting anyway. Of course Franklin could have visited every meeting, but then any proof of it has disappeared. But occam’s razor would conclude, that he probably just wasn’t interested in the whole thing.
This is what I am saying. Can you provide me with conclusive evidence that you are not a member of Hell’s Angels? Because if you can’t, there’s always a doubt about your character… This is why the burden of broof is on the one making the claim.
It works the same in historical research. Basically you have hearsay and a tavern rumour, but that is hardly any evidence of anything. This is why biographers and real historians hardly discuss it. There’s no proof and besides, it kinda is not that interesting anyway. Of course Franklin could have visited every meeting, but then any proof of it has disappeared. But occam’s razor would conclude, that he probably just wasn’t interested in the whole thing.