Teheuti
You are basically speaking about history or science determined via persuasion and voted on by non-experts. Most legal cases no longer go to trial with only circumstantial evidence. Law arguments by analogy, although I believe still allowed, are admitted to be the most faulty way to get at the truth. Still, this is not a Court of Law and judgments based on rational presentations without evidence is not how history works. Furthermore, logical arguments in the sciences and philosophy need to follow the formal rules of logic—not just what sounds good.This is the beauty of logical argument and rational presentaion of one's point of view. As in a court case, where each lawyer presents his case, with all the evidence he or she can come up with - however circumstantial it may be - and the interepretation of the facts of the case, the jury puts all the information together and decides what they feel is substantial evidence or whether they believe one side of the story or the other. . . .
Since most of this evidence will be secondary, speculation or simply an opinion, everyone can decide for themselves how reasonable it sounds.
I'm afraid we'll lose what few serious historian-types that we still have and be left entirely with those who don't know or understand anything about real historical research. You've certainly convinced me to go elsewhere for my tarot history if those are to be the standards here. There will be no one left who even knows who Ginerva Malatesta was or why she might have been significant.
BTW, I don't know why Michael (who is the primary person I believe you keep referring to) stoops to name-calling. He regularly gets chastised or kicked off the forum for a period of time for doing so. OTOH, he's made many extremely worthwhile and solidly-based contributions to the historical picture of both Tarot and cartomancy. I consider him a treasure, although a sometimes annoying one. And, when conversing with people who don't flaunt the methodologies you will rarely see him be anything but helpful and supportive. But I'm not here to answer for him or anyone else but myself.
I have to say that some of the most annoying people have been some of my best teachers both here and on TarotL, when they are the ones who've insisted on the highest standards and have pointed out my errors and questioned my facts or logic (as I tend to get carried away with ideas). We, in the Tarot world, deserve to have people who epitomize a world-class professional quality approach to the history of Tarot!
I am speaking as someone who would like to see the Historical Research section maintain a high level of scholarly historical standards, while still welcoming newcomers who want to ask questions or try out an idea but are then willing to learn.