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.