I'm sorry, it's difficult to read all the threads on all the forums, and their number is growing every day. Now I'm trying to look for the treadh where it's already been discussed, but I can't find it (even with *Yoro*).
In the meantime:
1) The question “Is there ANY evidence that the fish actually fail?” you can turn to “Is there ANY evidence that the fish actually DOESN'T fall?” Is there any "
Scientific literature" or should we only rely on "
Occam's razor"?
However this is not important. It does not matter. That's not the point.
2) Not having read the treadh in question, I wonder if this latest news was also reported (the one I reported was from twelve days ago).
However this is not important. It does not matter. That's not the point.
The point is the method, the epistemology. If we want a perfect science, a simple reality, we must exclude exceptions, strange phenomena, tracing them back to something known. Isolate, circumscribe, explain with a hypothesis that satisfies "Occam's razor", and therefore exclude.It is the "damned" who make science exact, exhaustive and reassuring.
“Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification — the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit.” (Karl Popper)
Fort instead offers us another method: include everything!
“We substitute acceptance for belief.” (“
The Book of the Damned”)
We must gather the damned and make them march: “In this book, I assemble some of the data that I think are of the falsely and arbitrarily excluded. The date of the damned. I have gone into the outer darkness of scientific and philosophical transactions and proceedings, ultra-respectable, but covered with the dust of disregard. I have descended into journalism. I have come back with the quasi-souls of lost data.They will march.” (“
The Book of the Damned”)
Abo ovo, going back to the beginning, in this treadh Fabio Picasso does the right thing: he makes very old damned march. Apparently the news I added is perhaps off topic because it was published twelve days ago, but it is also old news: “
The lluvia de peces (lit. 'rain of fish'), also known as aguacero de pescado (lit. 'downpour of fish'), is a phenomenon that has been occurring yearly for more than a century in Yoro, Honduras, in which fish are said to fall from the sky”.
So IMHO the news could be here.
But obviously it is easier for fish to arrive from underground channels rather than from the sky, because there are no fish in the sky.
"In Science, March 9, 1888, we read of a block of limestone, said to have fallen near Middleburgh, Florida. It was exhibited at the Sub-tropical Exposition, at Jacksonville. The writer, in Science, denies that it fell from the sky. His reasoning is:
There is no limestone in the sky;
Therefore this limestone did not fall from the sky.
Better reasoning I can not conceive of—because we see that a final major premise—universal—true—would include all things: that, then, would leave nothing to reason about—so then that all reasoning must be based upon "something" not universal, or only a phantom intermediate to the two finalities of nothingness and allness, or negativeness and positiveness."
("
The Book of the Damned" , cap. 6)