3 ms·

I'm going out on a limb here to try to make a contrary point. (I'm not defending the story about how they found the "real" D.B. Cooper, which sounds feeble.) Y

I'm going out on a limb here to try to make a contrary point. (I'm not defending the story about how they found the "real" D.B. Cooper, which sounds feeble.) You can reject the accepted theory (the standard explanation) if you can falsify some part of it -- this is literally part of the scientific method. Alternate theories arise because the accepted theory has serious holes in it. Some of these alternate theories turn out to be circumstantial, some turn out flimsy and silly, and lots turn out to be ludicrous conspiracy theories. Reasonable people who hear the wild conspiracy theories often wrongly conclude that the standard explanation must be right because the alternate theories are so wacky. To use you own example: The standard Shakespeare, the one from Stratford-upon-Avon, allowed his children to grow up illiterate (this is an agreed fact among Shakespeare scholars). For someone who valued the English language so much, who was one of the greatest writers of the English language, it seems unimaginable that he would not have made any effort to see that his children learn to read and write. For me, that alone is enough to reject the standard explanation (though I can cite other holes). It doesn't mean I can prove who the real Shakespeare was. It certainly doesn't mean that I accept the crackpot theories. My point is that if the accepted theory has serious flaws, and you reject it, that doesn't mean that you have to choose one of the crazy theories, or circumstantial theories, or any theory. It's enough to say that the standard explanation is wrong or deficient.

maxerickson 8y ago
I dunno, someone not giving a shit about their kids is relatively plausible to me.
- Reactionary_ 8y ago
  Especially someone busy writing a large collection of the greatest English works of all time. Alternately, if they couldn't read they'd have to go see his plays performed. That Shakespeare really was a shrewd businessman.
- hn0 8y ago
  Or, Shakespeare was completely consumed by it, to his detriment, and did not wish the same for his children.
starmftronajoll 8y ago
This line of reasoning does indeed embrace an alternate theory, the theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare’s plays. And it does so based on an isolated morsel of circumstantial evidence, just as the OP described. When an argument hinges on the sentiment “it seems unimaginable…” it often means that circumstantial evidence is being recast as something more definitive than it is.
- hitekker 8y ago
  A strong rebuttal that fits the model the original commenter set forth.
bsder 8y ago
> The standard Shakespeare, the one from Stratford-upon-Avon, allowed his children to grow up illiterate (this is an agreed fact among Shakespeare scholars). For someone who valued the English language so much, who was one of the greatest writers of the English language, it seems unimaginable that he would not have made any effort to see that his children learn to read and write. His children were all female, no? You didn't educate women in those days. You are applying 21st century first world standards to 16th century denizens.
- Supernaut 8y ago
  > His children were all female, no? No, actually. He had one son, Hamnet, who died aged 11.
benbreen 8y ago
The literacy issue is not as big an obstacle as we might think today. Shakespeare worked in a majority non-literate culture and created work (plays and sonnets) intended to be heard, not read. Moreover, he was largely an absentee father. If Melville or Tolstoy's kids were illiterate, I'd agree that something doesn't look right, but in this case we're projecting modern assumptions backwards into a deeply foreign early modern culture.
- bmy78 8y ago
  This. Holes in the conventional theory do not act as evidence for alternative theories because you end up inadvertently filling up those holes with presuppositions to support those theories. Case in point: a very plausible explanation for the Shakespeare example is that he was an absent father. You’re making the assumption that since he was a popular playwright and a master of the English language, he would want his children to at least be proficient in the language he loved. That presupposes the notion that all people who have a passion want to pass down that passion to their children. That’s not the case. Hole h in conventional theory c exists, therefore c is invalid and alternative theory a is correct is the kind of illogical reasoning that is the underpinning of so many conspiracy theories. Alternative theories need to have their own support for them, not simply rely on missing gaps of knowledge in the conventional theories.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
People make an inference to the best explanation. How does it work? There are thousands of factors at play but the credibility of the authors of the theory plays a huge role. Most conspiracy theorists are self-learned "experts" not from the field of inquiry but often coming from other scientific disciplines that provide them with the air of some scientific credibility even if they are laymen in the area of inquiry. In fact, that's such a hallmark of conspiracy theories that I would call those without that property "alternative theories" instead. In case of Shakespeare, many other theories are just alternative theories, I suppose. Anyway, unless you're an expert yourself the credibility of the authors is key.

maxerickson 8y ago

I dunno, someone not giving a shit about their kids is relatively plausible to me.

Reactionary_ 8y ago
Especially someone busy writing a large collection of the greatest English works of all time. Alternately, if they couldn't read they'd have to go see his plays performed. That Shakespeare really was a shrewd businessman.
hn0 8y ago
Or, Shakespeare was completely consumed by it, to his detriment, and did not wish the same for his children.

starmftronajoll 8y ago

This line of reasoning does indeed embrace an alternate theory, the theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare’s plays. And it does so based on an isolated morsel of circumstantial evidence, just as the OP described. When an argument hinges on the sentiment “it seems unimaginable…” it often means that circumstantial evidence is being recast as something more definitive than it is.

hitekker 8y ago
A strong rebuttal that fits the model the original commenter set forth.

bsder 8y ago

> The standard Shakespeare, the one from Stratford-upon-Avon, allowed his children to grow up illiterate (this is an agreed fact among Shakespeare scholars). For someone who valued the English language so much, who was one of the greatest writers of the English language, it seems unimaginable that he would not have made any effort to see that his children learn to read and write. His children were all female, no? You didn't educate women in those days. You are applying 21st century first world standards to 16th century denizens.

Supernaut 8y ago
> His children were all female, no? No, actually. He had one son, Hamnet, who died aged 11.

benbreen 8y ago

The literacy issue is not as big an obstacle as we might think today. Shakespeare worked in a majority non-literate culture and created work (plays and sonnets) intended to be heard, not read. Moreover, he was largely an absentee father. If Melville or Tolstoy's kids were illiterate, I'd agree that something doesn't look right, but in this case we're projecting modern assumptions backwards into a deeply foreign early modern culture.

bmy78 8y ago
This. Holes in the conventional theory do not act as evidence for alternative theories because you end up inadvertently filling up those holes with presuppositions to support those theories. Case in point: a very plausible explanation for the Shakespeare example is that he was an absent father. You’re making the assumption that since he was a popular playwright and a master of the English language, he would want his children to at least be proficient in the language he loved. That presupposes the notion that all people who have a passion want to pass down that passion to their children. That’s not the case. Hole h in conventional theory c exists, therefore c is invalid and alternative theory a is correct is the kind of illogical reasoning that is the underpinning of so many conspiracy theories. Alternative theories need to have their own support for them, not simply rely on missing gaps of knowledge in the conventional theories.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

People make an inference to the best explanation. How does it work? There are thousands of factors at play but the credibility of the authors of the theory plays a huge role. Most conspiracy theorists are self-learned "experts" not from the field of inquiry but often coming from other scientific disciplines that provide them with the air of some scientific credibility even if they are laymen in the area of inquiry. In fact, that's such a hallmark of conspiracy theories that I would call those without that property "alternative theories" instead. In case of Shakespeare, many other theories are just alternative theories, I suppose. Anyway, unless you're an expert yourself the credibility of the authors is key.