Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20200107191732

I'd prefer if you responded to the first one. It's logic seems pretty sound to me.

But Ferret, the other two parts might change your mind! Especially the part about the Latin names, since the previous two parts are more accessible to the laypeople, and help building up to this part!

And there might be things from those two parts you want to respond to. So you might as well add them in, so I have more to respond it.

I think he nailed it on our differences: he's far more willing to dismiss small inconsistencies in favor of the big story. Remember "missing the forest for the trees" earlier?

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Which means he's doing the same thing he criticizes other theorists for doing. If you're reading this, Ferret, I hope now you understand why I'm not willing to adopt your method of theorizing, and don't consider it a good method.

One thing that always bugs me watching other theorists work is just how willing they are to classify something that doesn't fit their models as "an inconsistency". Then they throw out the element and ignore it, and go whistling on their merry way, never realizing that they just jumped right off the train track leading to the answers.

It annoys me too when they toss out evidence like that. That's one of the reasons why I made this series to begin with. That's why when I debunk your points, I make sure to never call them an inconsistency, but rather, come up with an explanation for it.

We need a more factual way of analyzing the evidence.