Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20190403163405/@comment-32182236-20190418010536

All of that is true.. Which is exactly why we should analyze theories not based on who made them, but by the theory itself, and how it's presented. If you're wondering why I avoided making comments about your possible perspectives on the matter, it was to make myself devoid of emotions for or against you, the author, when analyzing your theories. Because it's not about WHO made the theory-It's about how good the theory is. Period. (Yours definitely surpass MatPat's.)

When I analyze theories.. Death of the Author applies there too. Who made it doesn't matter... What matters is how well it fits with the evidence.

That's why I discard just about every emotional argument that happened, and do my best to not use any myself. They're fallacious. It doesn't matter if you're The Big Guy or not, but what does matter is:How well-founded and well-supported is your premise?

So, how about we ignore everything about the person, and focus solely on the theory itself? Then, perhaps we'll understand each other's critiques better than we ever have before.

And yes, "everyone believes it, so you're crazy if you don't" is a bad argument. No, I wasn't using it when I mentioned that the common consensus is that we're Frisk or a third entity, because I asked for evidence, rather than shutting down the idea entirely. But I'm going to attempt to do the latter... By pointing out that Chara asks us, directly, for our SOUL.. But if we're Chara, Chara wouldn't be able to talk to us! There, hypothesis busted. We're not Chara.

..It's incredible just how common this is used. This is why we should analyze every theory as just that:A theory. We find out how credible it is by looking solely at the evidence presented. (and the countering evidence not presented that exists within the game as well.. And if we happen to find evidence supporting a theory that wasn't presented.. We add it back.. Pointing it out so said theorizer can add it in. Like how I added in that Asgore must have been the first king because he named the kingdom according to Gerson, so that rules out the statue being a previous king)

If we do that, we can analyze theories on a purely objective basis. Then, we can find out on a factual basis just how likely a theory is to be true. If we could just do that, misinformation wouldn't spread as fast. True discoveries would be verified and acknowledged sooner.

….But unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.