Morten St George Theory

[Linda]

Am I the only one who thought it hilarious that JKPs post about him having great eyesight is in a tiny font?  

I see the font as normal 

On an unrelated note, I just learned about a thing called Brandolini's law, which JKP's patient efforts in this thread and others reminded me of.

The redirect on Brandolini's law in wiki was pretty funny in itself.

I was going to say that i think Morten, and indeed anyone who receives criticism on their theory, should always address it, either by providing very good reasoning to sticking to the originally presented ideas, with a good explanation as to why the criticism is unfounded, or letting said assumptions go, in favour of something better supported by evidence, in order to better bulletproof the theory. I for one would have far more respect for a theory that could not easily be refuted, even if overall i found it to be unbelievable, as i would need to keep the door open a crack for the possibility that it could be correct, since it would just be a feeling that it was wrong, nothing concrete to work with.

Ie the energy required to refute would increase exponentially, if some of these problematic hypotheses were removed or exchanged for more widely acceptable ideas. Thus it could only benefit Morten to take these criticisms seriously and allow his theory to evolve into a stronger version of itself, rather than to constantly add to a string of just ax questionable assumptions to support the one being criticized . To his credit, he has made some changes in the past, so perhaps we shall still see this happen.