Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-26907577-20200107184059

This whole series is about taking a factual approach. Ferret's saying that we need to think more about what makes the story fit. 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? Try this line in particular:
 * I've often had people try to stab me with Occam's Razor by saying that there's no possiblity that my intricate and complex theories could pass any sort of simplicity test.

On the other hand, THA and I tend to be quite strict in this regard.

...

Here's my opinion on the topic: The simplest working theory is usually correct, but we don't have any incredibly simple ones. Until we introduce alternatives that match all the evidence- even if they don't explicitly create a story permeating all of the evidence- Ferret's theory is technically the best one we have.