[split] On the validation of Theories

[davidjackson]

The problem, if I may interject into this little discussion, is that whilst there are several interesting probable theories out there, there aren't any ways of proving these theories.

Torsten's theory is fascinating, but unprovable. So is Rugg's, realistically. There are a half dozen more out there. Same for the "it's real" theory, probable but no more provable than Torsten's. Or even SantaColumna's hoax theory.

I'm afraid that picking a camp amongst any of these theories is like Brexit. Ultimately, nobody knows and two "experts" can both hold diametrically opposing views - and both can be right (for a given value of "right"). You just choose the one that "feels right" to you and then you become emotionally involved.

So really, the only option is to be theory agnostic and evaluate all of them with an open mind. Personally, I'm putting all the theories that pass critical evaluation to one side in the hope that something pops up in the future that lends weight to one or the other.

So let's not get too emotionally involved in any theory. At the end of the day, it's all supposed to be a fun intellectual game. Or, in the words of the immortal Dilbert: