|>Jms at B5 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> If Peter knows the ages don't add up, he has a choice between a
>>>prosaic explanation (fake or misleading letter) or a weird explanation
>>>(Marvel science). Wouldn't you pick the prosaic one even in the MU?
>>Actually, being the good scientist he is, he wouldn't jump automatically to
>>either *one* of those...he'd do some more investigation first to gather more
>>information before reaching a conclusion. It's just good, old fashioned
>>Scientific Method 101.
>That's like saying that if I lost my keys, I'll wonder if I left them in
>another room or dropped them, but I'll also wonder whether there's a key-
>stealing ferret on the loose in my apartment somehow.
>I doubt Peter would even *think* of the weird explanation unless he's ruled
>out the normal ones.
We're talking fish and fowl. The examples you cite are *conclusions* or
guesses, as opposed to getting facts first. Also, again we're dealing with a
situation where if X is true, that these are Gwen's kids, and we know that only
Y number of years has passed, and that these two are much older than Y, then
there *has* to be a non-normal explanation.
But before he can get that far, he still has to verify the core facts: are or
are not these Gwen's kids? Nothing can logically follow until that has been
determined. First get the data, then move to theories, then to conclusions.
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)