(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Pedro Marques]

James Wynn wrote (30-11-2011 17:44):
> I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The problem is that we
> have two people who are using quite different methods of interpretation
> and one of them is claiming that the other's is not valid or, at least,
> never valid unless the reading is first credentialed by his own
> interpretive methods.

I simply disagree that that's what we have here. Do I have the right? I'm
saying that B's view of B's interpretation as valid only comes into question
as a contrast to B's view of A's interpretation's as not valid. The issue
are the reasons why B thinks A's interpretation is not valid. If you think
the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler
alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them. They are challenged
because they have problems, and the only way to go forward is to address
those problems. For instance, your time travel has the major unstated
problem that there appears to be no significant temporal displacement in the
certified instances of dream travel we have. On a first approach to that
problem, you adduce some discrepancies that seem to exist, such as the ages
of Horn's and Sinew's children. But that isn't very strong, so you've now
suggested that among other things Silk's 'suicide' occurred long before Horn
body's death on Green. You're reasoning, trying to find a way for your model
to work better. That is good. What isn't good is complaining that those who
see the exact same problem as you do are merely being obnoxious. You _do_
know that if a theory has problems they must be addressed, and saying that
it's all down to methods and readings only takes you so far.