Katherine Kurts had a cute little play on words relating to this
matter-- something like "the lack of evidence does not mean the lack
of existence" If she is lurking, I respectfully ask her to re-post
her remark as it fits this topic quite well.
I agree with Tim that we must stick with the facts and not rely on
speculation. Where we are lacking knowledge, we should, as I think
Steve is saying, continue to search and use speculation as a pointer
in our investigation. The lack of knowledge is a poor excuse to end
intelligent inquiry, but the blind reliance on speculation is likewise
a poor substitute for the truth.
Steve St. Clair" <steve@planetcentral.com>
says:
Mr. Wallace-Murphy recommends we "fantasist(s)" stop entertaining
ourselves with what might have happened and adhere to the facts that
are known. My question to Mr. Wallace-Murphy is this - What do you
suppose motivates us to go out and seek those truths that are not yet
known? I suggest it's the possibilities, the fantasies that we want to
prove. If we adhere only to what's known, and adhere only to a path of
what's already been discovered, I suggest we'd never learn anything
So let's ask ourselves - If something is not proven, can it have
existed? .
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html