Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20181123023529/@comment-32182236-20181202030020

Well, how about I explain my take? I had a post about it that got squashed in between Person's posts, (specifically between 4 and 5), so don't get the two of us confused, alright?

Anyways, I'm not sure exactly what Person's take on all of this is, but I'll explain my own.

Now, I don't have a problem with the notion that small details matter. Everything DOES have to be explained. Thing is, that's just it. Everything has to be explained. Einstien's theory was more complex and more correct, but WHY was it more correct? Because it better corresponded with the evidence. I've also made complex theories to explain small lore details, but only when that was the only way to explain such details. You have to remember Occam's Razor-When two theories are equally valid, the simpler one is usually the best one.

Note to other theorists against Ferret for insisting small details don't matter and/or use Occam's Razor to toss out small details:Occam's Razor applies to theories are equally valid. Explaining less evidence makes your theory less valid, so Occam's Razor is nullified here.