[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Enciphered shorthand...
At 07:10 13/11/2003 -0800, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
--- Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought it might be interesting to try to express
> my argument (that the
> VMS is an enciphered shorthand) plus some
> alternative explanations into a
> single diagram. Here's my first attempt:-
Nice picture, but IMHO there are a few things
that may be challenged.
That's what it's there for. :-)
First of all a question: are the boxes in red
supposed to challenge the ones in green?
My idea was to outline alternative interpretations based on the same
evidence, so that future tests or research can be designed around
eliminating one (or all) of them - I'd rather we all tried to move to a
position of moderate certainty on even the tiniest thing than indulge in
continuous hand-waving exercises (as has arguably been the case in the
Finally, an observation (or test result) cannot
identify the one correct hypothesis. It can
only divide all hypotheses in two groups, those
that are compatible with it and those that
For each set of evidential data, I was simply trying to list the competing
hypotheses that seemed compatible and relevant. Given the amount of time
and effort it must have taken to put together, it seems to me to be a
reasonable assumption that the basic physical characteristics of the VMs
were probably chosen deliberately, rather than simply picked at random. But
that is an assumption I've only just realised I was relying on, so really I
should have added that to the diagram too. :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: