Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-32182236-20171013224408

Indeed, one cannot dispute simple facts. That's why my theorizing style is that every piece of evidence within the game MUST fit-Otherwise, your theory is disputing simple facts. That's pretty much what I consider theorists as doing when they shrug off canon inconsistencies as "it's not canonically important" and such-Disputing facts. That's why during my discussion, whenever you've raised a question, using the game as evidence, I've offered an explanation for it, instead of just saying to ignore the evidence.

Really, Occam's Razor is only meant to be used when everything else about the theories are equal-When they're just as good at explaining ALL of the evidence. Now, if both theories take into account all the canon evidence, then yes, go with the simpler one. But if that "simpler" one has some plot holes and contradicts evidence, then it's not the better theory. I'm not going to accept any broken theories-If there's proof within the game that the theory is wrong, then the theory is wrong. You can try to explain why the evidence is there if the theory is true, but it must make sense within the world- it can't be a "Because Toby" explanation.

However, you cannot make up evidence either. The only evidence we have to work with is the actual game itself, along with, well.. logic and physics. Sometimes we must reject basic assumptions when accepting them makes explaining everything impossible-This is something Quantum Mechanics does by rejecting the basic assumption that objects can only be in one place at one time.

But, I think both of us can agree that the discuss won't really get us any further.