Asa Ulfsdatter (new research)

[JR Olsen]

_{My approach being within the natural sciences. I use caution in replying since we could be on different focal points. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps I need more time to give thought to it, but I am leaning more towards social science. At least part of it involves the psychological aspects to human reasoning and competition.}

Perhaps you are referring to the mathematical calculations.

[JR Olsen]

The main reason for not revealing more of my research, at least the depth of the research, is due to a pending publication.

[Christian Arentz]

I understand your concerns. It's not easy, however, to conclude, The approaches are very different. I am, in general, also leaning towards the social aspects, but you seem to me to resort predominantly to the natural sciences probabilities.       . 

[JR Olsen]

Do you care to, as briefly as possible, give further detail to your belief on natural science probability? Perhaps, right now, I am more focus on the subject natural science as oppose to one of its topic. Are you focusing on a topic?

If you are referring to the topic LOGIC, then you are correct.

[Are S. Gustavsen]

Mr. Olsen,

 

Regardless of your professional background, there is a need for you to actually present the matter before discussing it. Evidently something has gotten you upset regarding Lars Løberg's published work on Ellingård connected to Åsa Ulvsdotter (is it the 2004 article you are referring to?). You keep reiterating issues around her parentage, without really presenting which parts of the genealogical literature that is allegedly flawed.

 

More galling is that fact that you are blatantly ignoring sound scholarly approach in your dealings with both literature (of which there is little or no proper reference to) and actual source material (such as diplomas). 

 

In my last postings I've given some direction to how scientific research of genealogy should be approached. Please re-read my last posting and you will for one understand why the burden of proof needs to be the way it is.

 

As for your chosen method of discussion, I would not recommend it as it looks more like a battle against windmills.

 

And for the record, there is no nonsense in my last posting. I do provide guidance for those who are willing to listen. A closed mind, however, will rarely recognize this as a learning experience.

 

Sincerely,

 

Are

Endret April 14, 2014 av Are S. Gustavsen

[JR Olsen]

Mr Gustavsen, I have nothing further to say to you. Any and all further posts to me will be ignored. I am now, finally, having an intelligent discussion.

By the way, Mr Gustavsen, you could learn a lot from Mr Arentz

[Are S. Gustavsen]

Q.E.D

[Christian Arentz]

Q. E. D. er en forkortelse av den latinske frasen «quod erat demonstrandum» (ordrett oversatt til norsk: «hvilket skulle demonstreres/bevises»). Dette er en oversettelse av det greske ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι (hóper édei deĩxai), som ble brukt av mange tidligere matematikere, blant andre Euklid og Arkimedes. Q.E.D. kan skrives i slutten av matematiske bevis for å vise at resultatet man trengte for å fullføre beviset, er oppnådd.

[JR Olsen]

I read my summary here, and I believe that I now know why you see natural science. It is probably due to my words on the geography in Norway during the medieval times.

[Are S. Gustavsen]

Unnskyld, men jeg forstår ikke helt hvorfor denne debatten fokuserer mere på deltagernes antatte motiver, enn faktiske mulige slektsrelasjoner. Såvidt jeg kan forstå, dreier debatten seg om hvorvidt Åse Ulfsdatter var datter av Ulf Jonsson (sønn av Jon Havoresson), eller av Ulfs søster Cecilia g.m. Ulv Holmgeirsson Lejonbalk.

 

Er dette virkelig en BIG DEAL som fortjener slike opphetede debatter, eller har  jeg misforstått situasjonen?

 

Christian,

 

Selve kravet om at en deltaker må gi seg tilfredstillende til kjenne i en nettdebatt, kan da ikke anses å være feil. Nettopp i denne debatten kommer det frem med all mulig tydelighet at vedkommende skjuler seg bak mer enn én fasade. Den som deltar bør delta på en oppriktig måte og dermed fjerne alle mistanker om en skjult agenda.

 

Det synes helt klart at Olsen faktisk har en skjult agenda. Han uttrykker sterk misnøye med noen navngitte forskere og ønsker å kullkaste vitenskapelig forskning uten å selv ta den tunge jobben det er å utøve vitenskapelighet. Det er noe Heyerdahlsk over det hele, også ispedd litt Münchhausen og Quixote fra fiksjonens verden.

 

Langekiehl har omtalt dette med honette ambisjoner. Det er helt klart bruddet i den påståtte linje til det gamle norske kongehus som atter står i sentrum. Og når sinnet er fast bestemt på å finne kongelig avstamning, så ryker alle krav til kildekritikk og dertil hørende forsiktighet.

 

Hva om Åsa Ulvsdotter var en håndverksdatter fra gamlebyen? Hva om hun egentlig het Æsa og kom fra Danmark? Hvem vet. Så lenge 1433-brevet er vår eneste bevarte kilde som nevner henne, så er det ikke mye å gå på. Og dette har jo hele tiden vært Lars Løberg sitt poeng.

 

Det vil trolig gå en stund før alle tar det poenget.

 

Oppriktigvis,

 

Are

Endret April 15, 2014 av Are S. Gustavsen

[David Widerberg Howden]

Here are more questions for anyone qualified to answer.

 

1. Internationally, is one focus believed to be stronger than the other (domination)?

 

2. Is the focus in Norway internationally accepted or approved by the experts?

 

3. Is Norwegian science based on possibility or probability?

 

Well I don't think I should comment on the main issue as I believe Løberg, Gustavsen and others are more qualified than me.

Regardless of ones belief, I don't believe that there is a international agreement in which focus or methods are right.

 

1. I don't believe in the domination of one focus, to me science should show both sides and use arguments from more than one theory, and then conclude with whats probably the right theory or in many cases a combination of both (all should of course be according to primary sources)

 

2. Which "international experts" should decide how norwegian genealogists/historians interpret Norwegian genealogy and history? In my opinion norwegian researchers know our countries tradition, history, customs, culture, language and sources, and we have a long tradition for writing both history and genealogy. 

 

3. I don't believe Norwegian science is based on possibility (scientific hypothesis?), but much more on probability (scientific theory), and norwegian scientists are maby also more strict, on not reading more out of a primary source than can be proved directly by the source. (A minimum of interpretation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis). 

 

Please correct me if I misunderstood your questions..

[JR Olsen]

I am spending much time here today since this is my last day of posting here. Time to move on.

 

D W Howden, thank you for your reply.

 

I notice you use of the word theory. That is what much of science is based on, however, a theory is simply that...a theory (not necessarily proof).

 

I was simply trying to find out if, internationally, the Norwegian focus on science was accepted. I meant no offense.

 

I disagree on the interpretations. I believe (only my opinion) that Norwegians use too much interpretations.

[JR Olsen]

You stated "... on not reading more out of a primary source than can be proved directly by the source". Proof is not allows afforded. In your opinion, does certainty not play a role, as long as it is recognized as certainty and not proof?

[David Widerberg Howden]

You stated "... on not reading more out of a primary source than can be proved directly by the source". Proof is not allows afforded. In your opinion, does certainty not play a role, as long as it is recognized as certainty and not proof?

 

Well a 100% proof is hard to find in old documents, so some interpretations needs to happen, but these interpretations have to be connected to what the primary source says.. And these documents has to be read in context, not by how we read them in todays society. So one has to not only understand what it says, but know a great deal about how the society worked back then. In my opinion norwegian researchers today has a strict and conservative way on interpreting sources, and avoid speculations and hypothesis. But theres always some that produces a lot of false theories that is not accepted by most norwegian researchers.. Well the difference between proof and certainty, not sure if I follow you? Not sure if certainty is what I would use, but a proof can be more or less certain? If a researcher don't have the definite proof, then he may use certainty to decide which theory is most likely, but then the researcher has to write that its the most probable theory..

[Lars Løberg]

That these two fora now come up as prime results for netsearches on Åsa Ulfsdatter is indeed a positive thing. That links rearchers with the easy accessible information. And as long as that information is accurate, then that is nothing but positive. And every reader of this line will then easily realize that the basic facts about Åsa Ulfsdatter are

- Åsa Ulfsdatter is mentioned only once in a Medieval source, after her own death. The source connects her to a husband, one son and two sons-in-law. The document gives no decisive clue as to her origin.

- Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdatter left no known issue in Onsøy and they can possibly not be connected to the Rosensverd family.

- The debate has shown that Norwegian and Swedish genealogists have come to the same conclusions, solidly documented in scientific litterature.

- Allegations that Åsa Ulfsdatter was the daughter of Ulf Holmgeirson as set forward in this debate has not been substantiated. They are nothing but wishfull thinking. The anonymous claimant with his many identities will forever be linked to the production of genealogical garbage.

Endret April 15, 2014 av Lars Løberg

[Lars Løberg]

Unnskyld, men jeg forstår ikke helt hvorfor denne debatten fokuserer mere på deltagernes antatte motiver, enn faktiske mulige slektsrelasjoner. Såvidt jeg kan forstå, dreier debatten seg om hvorvidt Åse Ulfsdatter var datter av Ulf Jonsson (sønn av Jon Havoresson), eller av Ulfs søster Cecilia g.m. Ulv Holmgeirsson Lejonbalk.

 

Er dette virkelig en BIG DEAL som fortjener slike opphetede debatter, eller har  jeg misforstått situasjonen?

 

 

Nei, du har nok misforstått viktige deler av debatten. Problemstillingen er hvorvidt Åsa, og dermed titusenvis av etterkommere, hadde forbindelse til Sørumætta og dermed til det norske kongehuset eller ikke. Påstanden om at hun skulle ha slikt opphav ble framsatt for 140 år siden, av en av våre mest framstående genealoger på den tida. Han baserte antagelsen sin på en dokumenttolkning som det i ettertid har vist seg ikke å være dekning for. Hans foreslåtte linje, via Ulf Holmgeirsson, var i mellomtiden blitt forkastet av svenske forskere, som mente å kunne påvise at Ulf Holmgeirsson ikke har etterlatt seg etterkommere i det hele tatt. Norske etterkommere forsøkte da å finne en annen kobling ved å erstatte Ulf Holmgeirsson med Ulf Jonsson som Åsas far. I så måte opprettholdes forbindelsen til kongehuset. Og om det bare var denne lille forskjellen det var strid om, er jeg enig. Det er ingen big deal. Derimot har det vist seg gang på gang at å forsøke å fjerne enhver kobling mellom Åsa og kongehuset, som er den eneste logiske konsekvensen av å ha avslørt den opprinnelige feiltolkningen, rører ved folks selvbevissthet. Og det er åpenbart en big deal.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

Since there is no text material stating the names of Asa Ulfsdatter's parents there is and never will be 100% proof to the parents of Asa Ulfsdatter. However, it is important to conclude through qualified research/study the highest probable percentage of certainty. By means of careful analysis and through the proper process of elimination and a comprehension of the woven pattern laid out by the people of that time period let it be known that this research/study conclude that there is a 95% to 99% certainty that Asa Ulfsdatter's father was Ulf Holmgeirsson.

 

I admit that I do not care much about Åsa and her familiy....  (I am interested in method, though).

 

Nevertheless, I am curious about how you can calculate a probability for a relation.

That is, I know the mathematical expression for probability, but what are the quantified input data?

Endret April 15, 2014 av Ivar S. Ertesvåg

[David Widerberg Howden]

I admit that I do not care much about Åsa and her familiy....  (I am interested in method, though).

 

Nevertheless, I am curious about how you can calculate a probability for a relation.

That is, I know the mathematical expression for probability, but what are the quantified input data?

 

Me too, it is my belief that you need more than numbers, statistics and calculation to prove that a person have lived or even is related to someone..

The norwegian researcher/historian/genealogist/author Bjørn Jonson Dale states in the preface of the bygdebok Ørstingar: "Går du attende til 1600-talet, finn du ofte atterhald når det gjeld slekt- og ekteskap. Står det «truleg» tyder det at eg manglar prov, men har tre haldepunkt for at sambandet er rett. Står det derimot «kanskje» lyt ein ta dette bokstavleg. Sambandet er muleg, men bygg berre på to haldepunkt, og fråværet av motstridande opplysningar."

 

Which loosely translates to: "If you go back to the 1600`s, you often will find uncertain/unproved information about genealogy and marriages. If it says «probably» it means that I lack the definite proof, but that I have three clues indicating that the relationship is correct. But if it says «maybe» then you need to take me literally. It means that the connection is possible, but I only have two clues and the lack of conflicting evidence."

 

With that in mind you have a «probable relationship» if you have three clues/evidences that agrees and the lack of conflicting evidences.

You have a «less probable relationship» if you only have two clues/evidences that agrees and the lack of conflicting evidences.

But a relationship purely based on one clue is purely «hypothetical relationship», but it still needs no conflicting evidence, and even then this last one is so weak that it probably will not be accepted by norwegian genealogists as more than guessing (Even though the mathematical probability, by using this clue together with statistics could be 100%)..

[JR Olsen]

I was not going to post again, but I could not allow Lars Loberg's BS to be final.

 

Here is how one can evaluate the qualifications of Lars Loberg and Are Gustavsen. Observe the approach taken by Christian Arentz. His approach was impartial. If the other two qualified they would have taken the opportunity to ask proper questions and to learn about my research and the standards of others. They are too focused on the Norwegian standards.

 

Part of my studies on humans reveal exactly what Lars Loberg and Are Gustavsen attempt to accomplish. They do not want to learn, they want to teach. Teaching is domination.

 

How could I fully explain my research here. Would you comprehend my statements on using, in part, the social sciences and how they extended into the social mobility during the Norwegian medieval times? How could I explain on an internet forum what decades of genealogy research has taught me?

 

Seriously, get over yourselves. You can thank Lars and Are for interfering with an opportunity for you to learn about the standards of others and how you could have applied such standards to your standards.

[Kjell Arne Brudvik]

Mr. Olsen, while your thoughts and means to approach this particular issue is perhaps a new way of thinking – it still offer little more than a hypothetical opportunity to a question that has been debated quite a few times. I am sure that if you would offer your identity and the work that you base your claim on; then this discussion would perhaps be aimed differently.

 

Both Mr. Løberg and Mr. Gustavsen are brilliant people when it comes to knowledge about Norwegian genealogy in medieval times. If you have actual work to back up your claims, then I am also sure that they would be more open to discuss the matter. So far you have failed to put forth anything that can back up your claim, other than statistics and probability.

 

Probability will get you to initiate a debate; facts will get you conclusion for a debate.

[Christian Arentz]

#41 and 42

 

It appears to me that none of us are in agreement, not even the claimant himself, as to whether social or natural sciences approaches have been used by JRO to show the necessary family relationsships, and within what regime the probability calculations have been performed, not least how.

 

In order to proceed in a constructive manner, I suggest using the method of hypothesis testing, i.e. to:

 

1. Falsify the null hypothesis, i.e. whether there is actually no difference between the probabilities of having Aasa Ulfsdotter (Rose) being a descendant of Agnes Haakonsdatter of Norway as a daughter of Ulf Holmgeirsson (Lejonbalk) via his wife Cecilia Jonsdotter (Agnes`granddaughter) and having Aaasa being a descendant of the Agnes via Cecilias possible brother Ulf Jonsson.

 

Unless we find no difference, there is actually no reason to proceed testing the best alternative hypothesis, and the debate may be closed.

 

2. Whether there is a significant difference, continue pursuing the two alternative hypotheses:  Possible descendancies 1. via Ulf Holmgeirsson, 2. via Ulf Jonsson.

Endret April 17, 2014 av Christian Arentz

[JR Olsen]

Christian Arentz, my research contains social and natural science. I disagreed with your use of the word predominantly. I agree with your last post. I personally have no interest in a royal family connection. Kings during that era were no more than highest ranking nobility. I want proper knowledge on my ancestry. If you have observed the double-talk (contradictions) by Lars Loberg in this thread then you should easily see the problem.

 

I will make it easier for you...

 

 Lars Loberg Statements:

 

"Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdatter left no known issue in Onsøy and they can possibly not be connected to the Rosensverd family"

 

" Åsa Ulfsdatter is mentioned only once in a Medieval source, after her own death. The source connects her to a husband, one son and two sons-in-law. The document gives no decisive clue as to her origin.."

 

How can he make qualified statements that Asa is not descended from the above mentioned couple or royalty if there is " no decisive clue as to her origin"

 

Am I the only one who clearly sees the contradictions?

Endret April 17, 2014 av JR Olsen

[Lars Løberg]

Yes, you must be the only one missing the logic, exactly as you missed the simple logic of how Annstein Ulvsson could have been an adult in 1363 and still not reaching the age of 70 while still being mentioned in a diploma in 1419. Your logic sence and your ability with numbers really don't impress us.

 

We have no clue as to whom Åsa's father is, except for the first name, Ulf. That, however, does not imply that ANY of the known Ulfs could have been her father. If we know for certain that one Ulf left noe issue, than he possibly cannot be the father. But that still doesn't change the fact that we have no clue as to whom her father was. All it does is to slightly reduce the number of possible candidates.

[JR Olsen]

"Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdatter left no known issue in Onsøy and they can possibly not be connected to the Rosensverd family"

 

You stated no known issue. That is not the same as no issue. It means that if there were issue then it is not known. Although it may be not known if they had issue (according to you) the possibility remains that there may have been issue. Since there is a possibility, your statements have no value.

 

If Asa Ulfsdatter is only mentioned once (according to you) and nothing else is known about her, then it is possible that she descends from Ulf Holmgeirson or from royalty. Again, your statements have no value.

 

As for the discussion on Arnstein Ulfson, read my post in Genealogy and Science. There I stated that due to you using the Norwegian style with English text your statements were confusing. Once I realized what the problem was on your end, then I understood your statements. Regardless, my statements remain true that there is at least a 99% probability that there were two men named Arnstein Ulfson. You can use as much manipulation and/or intimidation as you wish, but the end results will lean in  my favour.

 

Your last post here to Christian Arentz will make others shake their heads at your confusing statements.

[Lars Løberg]

Don't you try to hide yourself behind language barriers. You're only digging your own grave deeper. In the case of Annstein Ulfsson, I deliberatly set up a trap for you. I tagged along, using your own language. I even overdid you, adding to his possible age in 1363 to make the equation seem even more unlikely. And what did you do? Did you ask for an explanation of what you didn't grasp? Oh no, you jumped straight into my trap with booth your feet. Making a complete fool of yourself as others easily understood where the solution was to be found. It proved that you had failed to understand the content of the 1419 diploma. And if you failed to understand the very first diploma we discussed, is there then any reason to believe that you have understood any other diploma any better than this one? I think not. I think you're simply an amateur not able to grasp the complexity of Medieval genealogy. And the more you write, the more certain I become - now allready being at the level of a 95 - 99 % certainty.

 

Now for the issue of no known issue. And this time I didn't even try to set up a trap for you. All I did was to express myself as exact as possible in a case like this. Point one: there is no known issue of Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter. That doesn't say they didn't have children. Most married couples had children. Point two: Ulf Holmgeirsson left no known issue in Onsøy. Why should he? That was not where he lived, he hardly had any connections at all to Onsøy. That's not where one would even look for possible issue. I as well as dr. Gillingstam have left open the possibility that he had the son Karl Ulfsson, but he has no links to Onsøy whatsoever. Point three: even though Ulf and Cecilia may have had children, some of them even surviving their parents, none of their issue survived the 15th century. That has been proven by Swedish sources. Thus, there is no logic discrepancy between my statements about no known issue and possibly not connected to the Rosensverd family. I have carefully chosen my words to keep all possibilities open. But you, who claim to be more open minded than the rest of us, once more fail to see even simple logics. Are we supposed to be impressed by you? I think not.