Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
No because there is more evidence for one theory than another. Not every theory is equally valid. Some people think it was hijacked by Aliens. We don't have to entertain every theory someone has just because we don't have definitive evidence as to which theory is true. We'll likely never have all the facts since we weren't there so we need to ascertain what happened via the evidence presented to us.
|
Correct that we will never likely know all the facts. However, this means we need to presume or theorise what happened based on the evidence we have. All we know is that the plane did not arrive at it's expected destination and that trace of the aircraft stopped over the ocean.
We can presume that it ditched. It's plausible. It's likely. It fits the result observed. But it is still a theory at this stage because as you rightly say, we can only work off the information we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
With the 'everyone's opinion is equal' route then even if they find the plane in the South Indian Ocean the conspiracy people will tell us it was planted there by the Government who hijacked it and we'll have to treat that as equally plausible too.
|
Be careful not to group too generally. A lot of people are simply open to the various theories that are, as stated, plausible, likely and fit the result observed.
Granted, some will always want to believe there is something more underhand and they will always get the attention from the media, so the masses have someone to point and laugh at and scream such statements as 'get the tin foil hats out' and so on - standard comments from those who blindly follow what they are told to believe by authoritative establishments without really looking into all the evidence available and making a fully balanced opinion. However, most are simple presenting theories which should be held up as being possible given the information we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
At the moment the best evidence we have points towards the ditching in the Indian Ocean. Maybe someone hijacked it, flew over Indian airspace without the Indians noticing, and landed on a airstrip big enough but remote enough to land a 777 and then hide it but there is no evidence that happened.
|
The evidence that is available allows both of these theories to be possible. One is more likely. However, we cannot call either of them fact until more evidence is uncovered. That said, let's not get stupid to make a point about entertaining every theory by saying that the plane might have vanished into a black hole and travelled through time, blah, blah. We have to at least be sensible and realistic with our judgements and presumptions. Saying that theories of aliens and black holes are as equal in likelihood as ditching or hijacking is just being facetious in order to elevate one's own opinion or person to the status of pedant. no-one likes pedants. Aliens, black holes, ditching and hijacking are equal as far as they are theories, but by no means, based on our experience of such events, are they equal in terms of likelihood or plausibility.
The most likely thing that happened to the aircraft, based on previous experience of similar circumstances, as that it crashed into the ocean. This conclusion will likely be backed up using inductive reasoning. however, saying that it
definitely crashed into the ocean just because all previous similar circumstances resulted in that conclusion would be ill-advised in my opinion. people should be more open to the possibility that something else may have happened and until we have the evidence to say otherwise, I will remain to hold an opinion of likelihood but with and openness of mind for other conclusions.