Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20181229180615/@comment-26006155-20190114113134

I'm glad you're willing to engage in constructive debate, Ambassador.

And I'm not surprised the Big Bang theory has be refined based on new evidence. When dealing with complex problems its hard for all the relevant information to reside in a single human brian, so scientists conduct Peer Review to help fill the gaps in each other's knowledge, and come up with a better theory that takes more evidence into account.

Still, a theory can't start without an idea of what to look for. And finding those ideas by brainstorming is sort of my special ability.

If I had paid more attention to the stranglely old Scabbers the Rat while reading the Harry Potter books, I might have realized "Hey, there's something weird about this rat".

Then I might have looked at the times Ron seems to lose Scabbers for a while as the rat goes off and does it's own thing, then ask WHY Scabbers was doing that. Then I'd start wondering if Scabbers was some kind of spy.

Then I'd start watching Scabbers like a hawk, and tracking all of his movements to try to find a pattern.

And then, after many levels of revision, I might come up with "He's reporting to Voldemort."

But none of that would be possible if I hadn't become suspicous of Scabbers in the first place, and made a mental note to research Scabbers as an important character.

All the logic in the world won't solve a problem, if you don't ask the right question in the first place.