Samuel Birley Rowbotham - Academic Qualifications

He studied at the University of Edinburgh Medical School. I will happily discuss the history in a thread devoted to that purpose, but this is the absolute last time you impugn his name in an unrelated thread.

So... to recap.  I've claimed numerous times on this forum that there are no extant records that would indicate that Rowbotham possessed accredited academic qualifications of any type, in either the sciences or the humanities, from any university in the UK, or from anywhere else for that matter.

There are many contemporary records (most recorded by globularists) which you willfully ignore.

I've given you the leads in the other thread. You're free to chase them or not.

Additionally, if you can find something conclusive from Edinburgh itself, please let me know, as the answers to many queries seem to depend on who exactly answering them at a given time (for example contradictory answers on the possibility of examining the hard records which exist but are not digitally cataloged). Your help/time is appreciated.

Quote

I've given you the leads in the other thread. You're free to chase them or not.

Again, could you please supply me with a link to that particular thread, as I'm unable to locate it.

I was asked on another thread (by moderator Ski) to create a separate thread for the purpose of discussing the purported academic qualifications of Samuel Rowbotham

• Doctor
• Christian
• Professor
• Surgeon
• Poet
• Explorer
• Scientist
• Writer
• Illuminator
• Leader
• Botanist
• Philanthropist

Samuel Birley Rowbotham was a brainless moron but a very talented con artist.

In reply to a request for information on Samuel Birley Rowbotham, this reply was received from The University of Edinburgh:

"mvm@ed.ac.uk

We have looked into this and can confirm that Samuel was not one of our students."

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 14, 2014, 02:34:41 PM

In reply to a request for information on Samuel Birley Rowbotham, this reply was received from The University of Edinburgh:

"mvm@ed.ac.uk

We have looked into this and can confirm that Samuel was not one of our students."

Curious. How did they arrive at that conclusion? If "looking into it" included only searching the 205 names they have scanned electronically it means nothing. If they actually took the time to search the hard copies, it could mean something.
I'm curious because most of the time the response has been, "the records from this time are largely not digitalized, and we're too busy to care enough to assign anyone to search through the books with all the listings when you don't even know what year he graduated."  Worded very nicely, to be sure, but the message was clear and perhaps even understandable. Whether or not a member of the public could get access to the books to search has been a mixed bag of responses.
Thank you for sending the email! Perhaps we can finally clear this all up.

LOL! Even universities from my country, which aren't really that prestigious, still have the names of absolvents from 150 years ago listed, and you're telling me a very prestigious university like Edinburgh wouldn't have them? xD

Quote from: Donk3y on April 14, 2014, 09:07:30 PM

LOL! Even universities from my country, which aren't really that prestigious, still have the names of absolvents from 150 years ago listed, and you're telling me a very prestigious university like Edinburgh wouldn't have them? xD

I believe if you read my post you will see that is not what i said at all. I said only a fraction of the older student listings have been entered into a searchable database.

It's still up to the flat earthers to prove that Samuel Rowbotham firstly attended Edinburgh Medical School, and secondly that he attained any formal academic qualifications at that institute.

It should be noted that common logic says it's not the task of the opponents of a claim (in this case Rowbotham's credentials) to disprove the claim, but rather the task for the proponents of the claim to provide irrefutable evidence for their claim.

If I told you I could fly, I couldn't realistically expect you to disprove my claim;  it'd be up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof.  One cannot prove a negative, simply because there is no evidence available for something that never happened.  As in Rowbotham's case.

If I told you I could fly, I couldn't realistically expect you to disprove my claim;  it'd be up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof. 

Even if the listings had been digitized or otherwise converted by electronic means, the original lists would have been recorded by hand and kept for historical reasons for the university.

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 15, 2014, 10:31:47 AM

If I told you I could fly, I couldn't realistically expect you to disprove my claim;  it'd be up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof. 

This is not at all analogous to that. You're better than that, I would guess, but perhaps not.

If you told me your great, great, great grandfather was a doctor, I would be free to believe it or not. If you provided several contemporary obituaries calling him a doctor (most written by detractors, and one that says he had a thriving, legitimate practice) and a good number of documents calling him a doctor the issue, to me, would no longer be in doubt. Surely the contemporary testimony outweighs your inability to provide a transcript for your ancestor. If I was still skeptical, I would look very hard to find any contemporary account that brought his title into dispute. In absence of absolutely any evidence he was not a doctor,  I must then conclude he was, by any standard of the day, a doctor.

However, rest assured that several members have and will continue to search for further evidence -- particularly at Edinburgh of Dr. Rowbotham's past accomplishments. We welcome your participation, even if your goal is at odds. "IN VERITATE VICTORIA," as Dr. Rowbotham says.

In the end your reluctance to admit his title seems particularly puerile, seeing as noone at all has asked you to accept the evidence of the flat earth because of his being a doctor. We are only asking that you cease attempting to deprive the man of his rightful appellation. Your only intent here is to disparage the man without any evidence at all he was not in fact a doctor. We can truly say then that ALL evidence points to his being one.

You are free to remain unconvinced. You may even say so. Perhaps the evidence is not conclusive to you. This is quite fair, and certainly your right. It has been, however, established to the satisfaction of the administration of this forum. If you continue to claim here he was not a doctor without evidence, you will face censure. Noone is asking you to prove a negative. We are simply asking you to provide any evidence at all that he was not a doctor, before you derail threads by stating conclusively and derisively that he was not.

You are, of course, free to believe he was not a doctor. You may write books on the subject of his education/profession, start a blog or website devoted to it, tell all your friends at cocktail parties. You simply may not derail threads and slander him here. This is not the first time you've been so asked.

He is mentioned as having studied there in a "The Christian Socialist: A Journal for Those who Work and Think. Volumes 5-9".

It's still up to the flat earthers to prove that Samuel Rowbotham firstly attended Edinburgh Medical School, and secondly that he attained any formal academic qualifications at that institute.

It should be noted that common logic says it's not the task of the opponents of a claim (in this case Rowbotham's credentials) to disprove the claim, but rather the task for the proponents of the claim to provide irrefutable evidence for their claim.

If I told you I could fly, I couldn't realistically expect you to disprove my claim;  it'd be up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof.  One cannot prove a negative, simply because there is no evidence available for something that never happened.  As in Rowbotham's case.
 

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 15, 2014, 10:31:47 AM

It's still up to the flat earthers to prove that Samuel Rowbotham firstly attended Edinburgh Medical School, and secondly that he attained any formal academic qualifications at that institute.

It should be noted that common logic says it's not the task of the opponents of a claim (in this case Rowbotham's credentials) to disprove the claim, but rather the task for the proponents of the claim to provide irrefutable evidence for their claim.

If I told you I could fly, I couldn't realistically expect you to disprove my claim;  it'd be up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof.  One cannot prove a negative, simply because there is no evidence available for something that never happened.  As in Rowbotham's case.
 

How would that improve your life?

You would be happier if you converted to the flat side.

I have been trying to convert Googleotomy for ever.  He thinks it is fun to be on the winning side.

I have been trying to convert Googleotomy for ever.  He thinks it is fun to be on the winning side.