Changes

# Interpretation '''b''' is consistent with view ''U''.

# Interpretation '''b''' is consistent with view ''U''.

Monkey Law states that in such a case, the holder of Theory ''U'' could as easily use that argument against the holder of Theory ''T''--and the proponent of Theory ''T'' would have no just cause to challenge that argument. (To do so would constitute [[special pleading]].)

In such a case, the holder of Theory ''U'' could as easily use that argument against the holder of Theory ''T''--and the proponent of Theory ''T'' would have no just cause to challenge that argument. (To do so would constitute [[special pleading]].)

In challenging a theory, one must not confuse the ''interpretation'' of a fact with the fact itself. Different theories infer different things from the same facts. Rejecting a theory out-of-hand merely because it infers things that your theory would not infer, is not logical and is not good [[science]]. The proper way to challenge an opposing theory is:

In challenging a theory, one must not confuse the ''interpretation'' of a fact with the fact itself. Different theories infer different things from the same facts. Rejecting a theory out-of-hand merely because it infers things that your theory would not infer, is not logical and is not good [[science]]. The proper way to challenge an opposing theory is: