[B5JMS] Amazing Spider-Man #510 (SPOILER SPACE--BIG REVELATION)

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: arromdee at green.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:23:30 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 21

In article <20040815020744.03855.00002251 at mb-m19.aol.com>,
Jms at B5 <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote:
>> If Peter knows the ages don't add up, he has a choice between a
>>prosaic explanation (fake or misleading letter) or a weird explanation
>>(Marvel science).  Wouldn't you pick the prosaic one even in the MU?
>Actually, being the good scientist he is, he wouldn't jump automatically to
>either *one* of those...he'd do some more investigation first to gather more
>information before reaching a conclusion.  It's just good, old fashioned
>Scientific Method 101.

That's like saying that if I lost my keys, I'll wonder if I left them in
another room or dropped them, but I'll also wonder whether there's a key-
stealing ferret on the loose in my apartment somehow.

I doubt Peter would even *think* of the weird explanation unless he's ruled
out the normal ones.
-- 
       Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 36
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 15 Aug 2004 09:16:29 GMT

>Jms at B5 <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote:
>>> If Peter knows the ages don't add up, he has a choice between a
>>>prosaic explanation (fake or misleading letter) or a weird explanation
>>>(Marvel science).  Wouldn't you pick the prosaic one even in the MU?
>>Actually, being the good scientist he is, he wouldn't jump automatically to
>>either *one* of those...he'd do some more investigation first to gather more
>>information before reaching a conclusion.  It's just good, old fashioned
>>Scientific Method 101.
>
>That's like saying that if I lost my keys, I'll wonder if I left them in
>another room or dropped them, but I'll also wonder whether there's a key-
>stealing ferret on the loose in my apartment somehow.
>
>I doubt Peter would even *think* of the weird explanation unless he's ruled
>out the normal ones.

We're talking fish and fowl.  The examples you cite are *conclusions* or
guesses, as opposed to getting facts first.  Also, again we're dealing with a
situation where if X is true, that these are Gwen's kids, and we know that only
Y number of years has passed, and that these two are much older than Y, then
there *has* to be a non-normal explanation.

But before he can get that far, he still has to verify the core facts: are or
are not these Gwen's kids?  Nothing can logically follow until that has been
determined.  First get the data, then move to theories, then to conclusions.  


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)