The thread "Is ROSWELL the main source for FARSIGHT?" contains a very interesting debate about the authenticity of the book "Alien Interview", showing two different methods of reasoning.
➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/70274-is-roswell-the-main-source-for-farsight
It's worth speaking about these methods to get better at logical reasoning:
Method 1: Assume whatever you are presented is not true, then look for evidence that it can be true. This is equivalent to inductive reasoning, in which you collect your data based on empirical evidence and try to look for patterns of a greater picture.
Method 2: Assume whatever you are presented could be true by asking "What if it's true?" as a thought experiment, then apply logic to see wether the story remains consistent. This is equivalent to deductive reasoning, in which you try to find errors that are not obvious. It's like pushing the tube of a bicycle tire under water to see wether it loses air through tiny holes you didn't see before.
Both approaches are valid, but both of them also have a downside you should be aware of:
Downside of the inductive method: Finding evidence can be very hard. It's like assuming that there are no unicorns in the universe, which can only be proven wrong by looking at every planet in the universe. For that reason, you don't use the inductive method if you cannot collect the evidence that would be needed.
Downside of the deductive method: Most people seem to be unable to ask "What if it's true?" without believing that it's true. This is the result of thousands of years of religious indoctrination and violent parenting. The word must be true because it is the word. No, words are NOT true. When I ask: "What if there are unicorns in the universe", that does NOT mean that I believe there are unicorns.
The inductive method tries to find possibilities by specifically looking for them and proving them true.
The deductive method tries to eliminate possibilities by looking for impossibilities (contradictions).
OK... but you need to be specific about the topic with an example.
The topic was : believing (or not) with zero proofs through a strange leap of faith what L.R.S. said about the origin of his 2008 book... He pretends he did not write it and that it came from the Roswell ET interview. And he asks you to please believe him if you want, and if not it is OK whatever nevermind.
Which method would you apply to this topic? How would it work?
With the given information, we must accept that we can't come to a definite conclusion, leaving the possibilities open until we get new information.
I agree ALL possibilities exist on paper.
But they do not have the same % of probablily.
In our case here, the proposition that "Spencer is the author" has a very high probability comparing to the other probabilities.
So it has to be printed in huge caracters and the others kept as very small footnotes.
If new information appear tomorrow, then we can revise the % and re-order the propositions.
I'm now convinced that you don't understand what a possibility is. Possibilities don't "exist". That's the whole point.
"the proposition that "Spencer is the author" has a very high probability comparing to the other probabilities."
How do you know?