>Jms at B5 <jmsatb5@aol.com> 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.
jms
(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas) |
|
