Board Thread:Off-topic/@comment-27847292-20160320014556/@comment-27304481-20160405004942

XxGaiaXx wrote: Aptos wrote: For the sake of logic: may I ask why it's not evidence? It is perfectly valid evidence in a courtroom, debate, or classroom. It's just circumstantial. So why does it not count. The reason its not really evidence because your not Amethyst or Peridot. I've said this before I agree. But why does that mean it is not a possible circumstance? (If it is, then that means it is an alternative hypothesis to the null, a possible hypothetical situation. If this situation could happen, then doesn't that mean it could be an interpretation of evidence?(if so, then wouldn't that mean it could form new evidence as a valid analysis of the situation, which is based on solid, albeit circumstantial evidence?)))