(urth) This week in Google alerts

[entonio at gmail.com]

No dia 2011/11/05, às 12:01, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>  
escreveu:

> You're right that no knowledge of obscure fauns is "needed." Full  
> understanding of exactly how Wolfe composes and constructs his  
> stories is not "needed."

This ties in with a point I never see made but I think is quite  
important. People strive to find 'logical', 'scientific' explanations  
for everything, and when they find them, or think they did, 'that's  
it'. Well, sorry, no. It may usually be it, but, scientifically  
speaking, maximum likelihood and certainty aren't the same thing.