Theories Discussion > General Discussion

Avalanche theory

<< < (13/13)

WinterLeia:

--- Quote from: Partorg on April 21, 2024, 06:20:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: WinterLeia ---There only thing Occam’s Razorish about the avalanche theory, or slab slip theory, if you prefer, is that weather and nature-related theories don’t require as many assumptions as, say, murder or military testing
--- End quote ---
Quite right.  The most consistent with Occam's principle are those explanations of existing facts  that contain the fewest number of assumptions. That's exactly what I meant.


--- Quote from: WinterLeia --- shouldn’t base your theory on the non-existent evidence.
--- End quote ---
None of the existing hypotheses has evidence. And most likely, they will no longer exist. All we can use in our search for truth are arguments.


--- Quote from: WinterLeia ---Verdict on what caused the hikers to flee the tent: An unknown compelling force. That is the only theory that fits all evidence and requires the least amount of assumptions.
--- End quote ---
grin1 okey1

--- End quote ---

Thanks, Partog. You’re the only one who gets the point I was trying to make. While I don’t agree with the avalanche theory, I don’t have a problem with G & P believing it and writing a research paper, Nor do I have a problem with people agreeing with them and voicing their opinions. The absolutely frustrating thing about this case is that, other than Big Foot and alien visitors (in my opinion), no theory can be completely ruled out, although some obviously are far better than others. But that only bolsters my point. Since a lot of people who read research papers or books or watch documentaries about the tragedy do it because they have neither the time nor the inclination to deep dive into the source material, they are trusting you to present a fair and accurate case for your theory. True, it would always be way better to do the research for yourself. But many people don’t, and it doesn’t help anything to mislead the audience by not presenting both sides of the case and then let their audience be the jury. All it does is breed distrust. Especially is this the case, if you’re an expert in the field or the one responsible for putting the official report together, since opinions of such people carry far more weight than most everyone else. That’s the main reason why I tend to harp on the avalanche theory.

And I have to admit that after reading Teddy’s book, I was also skeptical of that theory. But I found her to be far more balanced and fair, in comparison to G & P. Even more admirably, she lets us discuss other theories on the forum, and thus provides the back and forth one needs to come to an informed decision, especially in the face of a supreme lack of evidence and not even knowing if what evidence we have relates to the tragedy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page