Again, you are missing the point. This isn't about me claiming to be right as it is about me offering a more reasonable explanation that is nowhere to be found in the story. If a prosecutor was trying someone for murder and their only evidence was a strong motive, all the defense has to do is provide a reasonable argument that the defendant wasn't even there. You realize that, right? The defense doesn't have to disprove the motive, they can even agree with the motive, but if the defendant wasn't there there then they simply weren't there. Now, if it is obvious that the defendant wasn't there yet the prosecutor rattled on about motive, you would be furious (I hope).
And I am not making this stuff up, I just have much more experience than you. When I was (much) younger I was much less critical of what I read, like you are now. More whimsical.
I used to think everyone at some point in their life, some earlier, some later, gets out of that box you are in. I can understand when you are very young and naive, but after you live for a few decades, you don't have to be fantastically smart to realize how much of what you read turns out to not be true, in many cases, at all. You then realized a pattern to pseudo science and can recognize it more quickly.
I no longer think that everyone makes it out of your box, at any age.
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Yes Robert, whatever comes off the top of your mind must be right, in contradistinction to all those silly regression analysis. Just making it up the way you do is so much more "scientific".