posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by Jezus
I am not extrapolating anything from some specific case, why do you think I am?
What I want to say is that when we have two possibilities, one based on strong evidence and one that is based in, lets call it, "light" evidence,
which do you think should be considered the most likely explanation?
If you get home and you find a mirror broken on the ground what do you think? That the support broke and the mirror fell or that a ghost threw the
mirror to the ground (for example)?
Both are possibilities (for those that think that ghosts may exist), but for one you know that there are strong evidences (things under stress break,
and gravity pulls things down) while for the other you may know some evidences, but I doubt that you have such hard evidence as you have for the first
In that case, what will be the explanation that you would consider most likely?
PS: I think I know what the problem is, I should I have made it clear that I was talking about what people think
is the right explanation, not
that only one will be the right explanation, and one that may not even have been thought about.