a) How do you know he has an IQ of 160?
b) I know numerous people with IQ’s of 160 plus. None of them are perfect. Several of them have more than one idiotic belief. Most of them have different opinions from each other about the definitions of several different words. Someone with an IQ of 160 is 100% capable of believing that a fine imposed by the government and a tax are essentially the same thing. IQ is about the ABILITY TO REASON FROM ONE’S ASSUMPTIONS. It tells us nothing about whether a person makes correct assumptions, such as the incorrect assumption that fines and taxes are the same thing.
And I wasn’t JUSTIFYING anything. I was simply pointing out Occam’s razor that simpler explanations are more likely to be true. I simply illustrated one possible simpler explanation... so what if it was a poor one. The fact remains that there are numerous possible explanations that are much simpler than your convoluted one.
The simple explanations failed to predict this outcome.
Scientifically speaking, what would that suggest to you?
Also, the “simple” explanation for the ex parte invitation made very public by the judge on the very day that the defendant’s case was being considered is only “simple” on the most merely physical level.
It’s sort of like the “simple” explanation for a man eating another man’s face being that he just got hungry. Isn’t that the reasonable thing that everybody concludes when they see one man eating another man’s face? It’s simple so it must be true...