2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 568:
Line 568: +
→Intentions
: Your last comment about ghostwriters seems to reject my argument by requiring a standard that could not be met by any theory, and begs the question by declaring that there were no eyewitness accounts, the very point in contention.
: Your last comment about ghostwriters seems to reject my argument by requiring a standard that could not be met by any theory, and begs the question by declaring that there were no eyewitness accounts, the very point in contention.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 16 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 16 December 2007 (EST)
A lot of things are possible, and of course you can have many alternative possible explanations. But the interesting ones are the likely explanation. Given the inconsistencies, it might be caused by a single person changing his style, but it could also be due to an editor compiling from different sources, especially since it is very likely that someone edited the text anyway some time after Moss death. It is argued that the changes are too big for a single author. While possible, it is not considered to be the most likely explanation that there were at least two stories, before an editor went to work. Anyway, point is there a lot possible, but that doesn't make it likely. A explanation becomes more likely, the more supporting evidence you have, and evidence can come in different shape and forms. The eyewitness standard was set by yourself, and indeed I think it is a bit unreasonable. If you defend an explanation that is just possible, you should at least have the courage to admit, that other explanations are considered more likely. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)
===Scientific Claims===
===Scientific Claims===