tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote:
If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.
A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .
But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.
|