5 ms·
The evidence of the third person is that otherwise you've got to explain how the people in the car tricked the autopilot into driving at crashable speeds in a t
by SamBam 6y ago
The evidence of the third person is that otherwise you've got to explain how the people in the car tricked the autopilot into driving at crashable speeds in a tiny cul-de-sac, where normally it wouldn't even engage, even apart from tricking it that there was a driver in the seat.
At this point, it's an Occam's Razor question, though different people will argue about which was simplest.
If there had been a third person who fled the scene, though, you would expect any physical evidence to have been left behind after that fire.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago> you've got to explain how the people in the car tricked the autopilot into driving at crashable speeds Or the autopilot did that by itself. I don't see why we need to assume any human trickery.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago>> The evidence of the third person is that otherwise you've got to explain how the people in the car tricked the autopilot into driving at crashable speeds in a tiny cul-de-sac, where normally it wouldn't even engage, even apart from tricking it that there was a driver in the seat. But that's not "evidence". That's just an unanswered question. As I said recently in another comment, if you find yourself at the point where you're thinking "I can't think of a better explanation", that's not the time to say "that must be the answer"; that's the time to think harder until you find a better explanation. In this case, if you can't find a better explanation than "there must have been a third person that we don't know was there", then it's time to sit down and think harder about how the accident could have really happened. Because if you start assuming things we have no evidence for, you might as well assume invisible space leprechauns, for all the good it will do.