Arthur's Existence - (again!!) - but what Standard of Proof?

[Malcolm Martin]

This is a personal opinion but I do not believe that King Arthur
existed.

Which has raised another issue for me, and one I have meant to ask you all
about some time back. What standard of proof should we be using to prove
or disprove his existence?

To my mind there are two issues that need to be faced, whether by those who
put forward the proposition that there was a Historical Arthur [albeit with
mythical/legendary accretions] AND by those who put forward the proposition
that there was only a Mythical Arthur [who has been historised].

The first is the actual Standard of Proof involved, and the second that it
is for each side to show/prove that they are correct.

Standard of Proof

It is well known that there are different standards of proof - listing
those I can think of in order of certainty:

a) absolute certainty

b) beyond reasonable doubt - [criminal conviction standard in UK]

c) 'clear and convincing evidence'--[the standard used in important,
noncriminal cases.... Clear and convincing evidence is typically defined as
`that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to
be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance,
but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable
doubt as in criminal cases." R. Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional
Parameters of Federal Impeachment, 76 Ky. L.J. 707, 719 (1988).]

d) balance of probabilities - [civil case in the UK, with it being the job
of the person making the allegation to prove their case on the balance of
probabilities

e) personal opinion?

I think that most, (although probably not all), of us on this NG would
accept that proving the existence of the Historical or Mythical Arthur with
absolute certainty is not possible with the current information we have. I
suspect that those who would not agree with that statement are those who
have identified, at least to their own satisfaction, the original Arthur
with a particular local figure. But the very fact that such an
identicication has not been universally accepted indicates to me the
difficulty of proving the matter with absolute certainty - for were it to
be absolutely certain, such an identification would be more generally
accepted.

I also suspect that proving beyond reasonable doubt that Arthur was
originally Historical or Mythical is not possible from our current
information.

If that is correct (and it may not be) then should we be looking to 'prove'
the matter by way of clear and convincing evidence [or arguments], or
should we just be lookig to get as far as 'on the balance of
probabilities'?

All Involved?

One of the arguments I first encountered in my personal search, was that
there was no need for those who argued that Arthur was non-historical to
prove their case, since that was to ask someone to prove a negative. My
view is that that is incorrect, since we have two competing posutive
statements

a) Arthur is originally Historical
b) Arthur is orginally Mythical.

Moreover, with Oliver Padel's papers and Tom Green's website, which both
seek to argue/prove the Mythical Arthur as against the Historical, there is
I think a de facto acceptance that whichever side one wishes to take in
this matter (and some will take neither, prefering to live with an Arthur
of Literature), it is for that person to prove their case.

Which brings me back to my original question - what Standard of Proof?

Take care, and whatever your Arthurian predilictions - ancient or modern
literature, TV or film, historical or mythical or whatever else - enjoy!!

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Mabon Dane]

Post by Malcolm Martin
Which has raised another issue for me, and one I have meant to ask you all
about some time back. What standard of proof should we be using to prove
or disprove his existence?
To my mind there are two issues that need to be faced, whether by those who
put forward the proposition that there was a Historical Arthur [albeit with
mythical/legendary accretions] AND by those who put forward the proposition
that there was only a Mythical Arthur [who has been historised].
The first is the actual Standard of Proof involved, and the second that it
is for each side to show/prove that they are correct.

This is a dilemma faced by many historians about what Standard of Proof
is required. This is when all the debates start. I am with the "on
balance of probabilities" camp. No side could argue beyond reasonable
doubt either way.

I watch for patterns in all the evidence I come across and from that I
will draw my conclusions. I will introduce some of my arguments in
future posts. But again I stress these are my own personal conclusions
which others can accept or deny but adds hopefully another dimension to
the debate.

Mabon

[David Adrien Tanguay]

Post by Malcolm Martin
What standard of proof should we be using to prove
or disprove his existence?

I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. The question should be:
What degree of proof does the evidence support?

One level you're missing (position d.5 by your original post, here snipped)
would be possibility (or absence of impossibility), or maybe better
reasonability (or both, as two levels, if you like).

Post by Malcolm Martin
a) Arthur is originally Historical
b) Arthur is orginally Mythical.
Moreover, with Oliver Padel's papers and Tom Green's website, which both
seek to argue/prove the Mythical Arthur as against the Historical, there is
I think a de facto acceptance that whichever side one wishes to take in
this matter (and some will take neither, prefering to live with an Arthur
of Literature), it is for that person to prove their case.

And (IIRC) Padel's conclusion was that the evidence supports Mythical to
the extent of "a balance of probabilities". I think Padel and Green would
consider both positions to satisfy "possible", even "reasonable". Whichever
position you would prefer, there aren't enough hard enough facts here to do
better than "balance...".

Post by Malcolm Martin
Which brings me back to my original question - what Standard of Proof?

The standard of proof required depends upon what you need the proof for.
If a murder trial hinged upon it (I couldn't come up with a scenario for
that!), you would need "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the local chamber of
commerce wants to throw an Arthur parade, the village idiot's opinion would
be enough -- overkill, even.