Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20190403163405/@comment-32182236-20190419205729

BlackfootFerret wrote: Also, I use Story Potential as a type of compass to detect good avenues to explore. But I realize that alone isn't sufficent evidence to support a theory.

Which is why I brought up how "Springtrap Rain" and "Doctor A is Gay" are simple theories that don't explain all the observable evidence. While the "Springtrap Possessed" and "Doctor Ando-Faustus" theories are very complex solutions that DO explain the observable evidence.

As you yourself said, quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

The evidence eliminates the theory that Spring Bonnie failed because it was wet, and the theory that Doctor A just wasn't into his wife to begin with.

So with the simple answers down, we have to look for the least complex theory.. that also accounts for all the evidence.

And it just so happens that the theories I presented not only account for the evidence, but also generate a very satisfying narrative.

Something that would require astronomical odds if it was truly randomly generated.

Which means it's much more likely to have been deliberately crafted that way from the start by the author. Why did you think I said you successfully debunked the theory?

I agree that they don't explain all the evidence, and are thus wrong. I disagree with the premise that Story Potential is the reason why they're wrong.

As I said, anything that can be solved using Story Potential can also be used using logic. In this case, we used logic to show how these possibilities don't make logical sense, and are thus eliminated. No need for Story Potential.

Yes, a great theory should account for ALL the evidence. Thus, we shouldn't say the evidence is wrong whenever it conflicts with our theories. There's a difference between saying the evidence doesn't hint at anything (After all, sometimes a rock is just a rock), and saying that the evidence is flat-out wrong. (eg:"What do you mean someone should have tripped, there were no rocks! The rock you saw only existed to serve as a boundary for the player! It doesn't exist!")