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.
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.
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.
Alternately, if they couldn't read they'd have to go see his plays performed. That Shakespeare really was a shrewd businessman.
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.
No, actually. He had one son, Hamnet, who died aged 11.
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.
It does make sense on the surface... but once you factor in the source and the (very likely) alternative that he simply died in a massive forest into which he parachuted, I don't know, I'm just less convinced.
Plus as we saw with the Silk Road DEA/Secret Service bitcoin theft stuff, federal agents don't necessarily make good criminals simply because they were well-trained feds/LEO.
At night, in the dark, I'm not sure if it would be worse getting stuck 50 or 100 feet off the ground, in a tree that can't be safely climbed, or dropped right in the middle of an unfamiliar frigid lake, and having to swim to shore before hypothermia sets in.
I think, getting stuck in some widow-maker of a tree leaves you with a fighting chance to wait until daylight, to negotiate how to overcome the hazard, but a lake forces you to struggle, possibly into a bad decision, because you have to act before the cold overwhelms you.
It was pretty convincing for some.
The document was a manual for a clothes washing machine.
I've tried to find the link but can't at the moment. I think it was in one of the skeptics.com.au publications.
Our brains are really, really good at taking some sparse information and pattern-matching it up to a complex interpretation. And then convincing ourselves that the interpretation is the only one possible.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17438733
When I looked at the example at the top of the paper, where Steve Carell is misidentified as Zooey Deschanel, I thought - I can envision the AI saying (anthropomorphically) yes, I know that looks like Steve overall, but just look at those eyes - that has to mean something. Kind of like a conspiracy theorist/paranoiac.
On the contrary, you’ve described an intuitive way of teaching the dangers of overrelying on circumstantial evidence.
Well done.
I do the same. I find it useful practice for spotting the logical leaps/fallacies, and it's good to be reminded that circumstantial evidence is not proof.
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately for all of us this simple bit of wisdom is considered heresy in modern society.
This is the case in Japan. No body, no declaration of death. It means people who died in disasters can be declared "missing" indefinitely.
It does make me wonder -- can someone wrongly declared dead travel to Europe, invoke the GDPR's right of rectification, and force credit agencies and the like to make them undead? This seems like it might be faster than getting appropriate court rulings.
Would be interesting if someone gave it a try, though - doubly so on a biometric passport - if all the biometrics check out but you're officially dead - what will the result be?
Chances are you'll find yourself in an interrogation room with lots of law enforcement wondering how on earth you managed to substitute a dead person's biometrics for your own...
Additionally, I suspect no institution would interact with YOU in any capacity - seeing as you're dead - but rather interact with your estate.
Lawyers and bureaucrats would have a field day for years if someone gave this a try. :)
The implementation will be corrected to match the documentation.
I think everyone should take a look at the Wikipedia article for theories of who actually wrote the works penned to name "Shakespeare" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_questio...) and scroll down to the "Alternative Candidates" section. When you read one, the circumstantial evidence looks perfect. Then you read another candidate and you say "gee that sounds really valid too...". Obviously they can't both be right, but each one presents circumstantial evidence that seems to connect perfectly.
After you've red the alternative candidates, read the "Case for Shakespeare's authorship", which is the case that it really was Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon that wrote the plays. There's some hard evidence (though not enough to be 100% conclusive, it's probably 90% conclusive, and enough convince most scholars) that makes the rest of the theories seem totally unfounded.
I went on a bit of a rant here, but hopefully my point comes across, that circumstantial evidence is really quite far from real hard evidence. Unless some guy comes forward with those bills with the correct serial numbers or someone finds a body, it's going to remain an unsolved mystery.