Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00114)

Paul Johnson writes: If anyone has any alternative
identifications of Masters to offer, I'd be delighted to consider
the relative weight of the evidence and discuss pros and cons.
In the absence of such constructive criticism, I think it best to
leave readers to judge for themselves."

Well, Steve Richards in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST in 1988 offered
an alternative identification of who Koot Hoomi really was.  As
far as I know Johnson doesn't grapple with Richards' "alternative
identification" in his two published books.  Now I believe I have
very good evidence to show that Richards' hypothesis concerning
the true identity of K.H.  is way off base.  I don't know who
K.H.  really was, that is, his personal name or identity.  But
why does one have to offer an "alternative identification" in
order to show that Richards' identification as well as Johnson's
identifications are incorrect?

In other words, Johnson seems to be saying something like:"well,
a bad identification is better than no identification."

No, as Dr.  Marcello Truzzi wrote in his journal *Zetetic
Scholar*, August, 1987:

"In science [as well as in history and other scholarly
disciplines] the burden of proof falls upon the claimant...The
true skeptic.  .  .  asserts that the claimant has not borne the
burden of proof...."

Paul Johnson is the claimant and he bears the burden of proof.
It seems to me that a wrong "identification" of the Masters is
NOT better than no "identifi- cation."

And since Johnson wants to quote from THE MODERN RESEARCHER by
Jacques Barzun and Henry F.  Graf, I will quote this from that
same classic:

"The particular error we have been examining is worth a word
more, because it enshrines a common slippage from one use of
evidence to another: the writer on Wordsworth [substitute Johnson
on the Masters] found his hypothesis consistent with the facts he
had gathered, and from this consistency he deduced confirmation.
He may be imagined as saying: `Since there is nothing against my
view [in Johnson's case this isn't even true!] since, on the
contrary, certain facts can be made to support my view, therefore
my view is proved.' But proof demands *decisive evidence*; this
means *evidence that confirms one view and excludes its rivals.*
Mr.  Bateson's [substitute Mr.  Johnson's] facts will fit his
view *and* his critic's *and* several other possible views as
well.  To say this is to say that they support none of them in
such a way as to discriminate between truth and conjecture."

yes, let readers of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED who have
access to some of the material I have cited in my Part I and in
future Parts, judge whether Johnson's "identifications" are on
target or not.  I say his identifications are off target and I
try to give evidence and reasoning to support my view.  If Paul
Johnson is not willing to discuss in a free and open way valid
criticisms of his thesis that is his choice.  But I repeat again:
A bad identification is not better than no identification.  Maybe
some other student of Theosophical history or even myself will in
the future discover the true identities of M.  and K.H., but as
far as I can ascertain the situation, Johnson's "identifications"
are a dead end; his explanations don't even begin to explain the
totality of evidence pro and con.

In Part II, I will give examples from THE MASTER REVEALED that
indicate that there are many statemnts therein that are simply
wrong, totally in error in light of primary source documents.

Daniel Caldwell