Replies

The key to the issue is the preponderance of evidence standard.

The problem with your argument is that it is too reasonable to stand any chance in the present political climate. As Herbert Barger so naively discovered when asked to help find the genetic markers for this study - those interested in this subject are not involved in a search for the truth. They have an agenda. That agenda is only served by Thomas Jefferson being adjudged as the father of one or more of Sally Heming's children. They do not care that others might be culpable, and that any scientifically credible conclusion would point out all of the probabilities. No, they are only interested in jumping to the conclusion that suits their agenda.

I have no objection to the reasonable approach that you champion - your arguments are rational, are supported by the facts as we know them, and help shed light on this complex issue. But, your argument is of no interest to those who have advanced this debate. They will only accept one conclusion, facts, statistics, and truth be damned.

I must admit that you are a very clever arguer but you tend to reveal your cards with a tell. ( a tell is poker talk for some behavior that gives an indication of the strength or weakness of a player's hand). In this case a tell is an indicator of preposition or bias. To continue the analogy, the tell in your hand is the use of the words "adjudged" and "culpable." As you have rightly pointed out, science is not about culpability or being "judged". It is about probabilities. Yet you insist on using words that convey a sense of moral judgment as though Jefferson, Randolph, Hemmings et al were in some metaphysical dock being judged. While it isn't nearly as egregious as those on the far left who want to lard some kind of strange " moral culpability" equation to the mix where none exists.

God Bless you for not engaging in that time honored fallacy of reference " Prove Randolph wasn't the father"

I do admire your effort at evenhandedness in the issue and you have come to the honest conclusion that probability has much greater heft than possibility. It is disingenuous among those who, for the sake of preserving their bias, would given them equal weight.