Chatterbox => Theorizing about Theories => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 21, 2012, 06:59:29 AM

Title: Applying logic to matters of fact.
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 21, 2012, 06:59:29 AM
See my reply in the Alternate Theories section Marty. I might add that nowhere have I ever asserted that you should accept my say-so, ...

True.  I'm drawing that inference from the number of times that you have humbly disclosed your credentials and indicated how strictly you follow your training in the science of archaeology.  The word "credentials" comes from the Latin root, credere, which means "to believe."  A person with credentials is someone worthy of belief.  In this case, the credentials you have don't apply to the field in question.

... simply that the New Britain hypothesis is currently as valid as the Nikumaroro hypothesis simply because neither has been proven to be correct.

You are, of course, utterly correct in the field of pure logic.  We may also add in alien abduction to that list, because that hypothesis has also not "been proven to be correct."  And the theory that AE never took off from Lae at all, but was replaced by a female impersonator who had been trained in espionage.  And the theory that 1400-horsepower engines were installed in Lae so as to allow the female impersonator to spy on Tokyo en route to Howland. 

Once you adopt the idea that all theories that are unproven are of equal value, it opens a whole new world of wonder to inquiring minds.  And, since your only guide to life is "proven or not proven," there is no way to pick among them rationally.

I am guided by the belief, which I grant is unproven, that it does not make sense to waste scarce resources on implausible theories.  Of course, if one were to object that "only what is proven is reasonable," I would reply that that proposition itself is unproven, and therefore, if it is true, then it is unreasonable to accept it.