[betty boop]

A story may be coherent without being true.

Then again, a story might be true without its being coherent -- from our point of view.

When that sort of thing happens, that ought to tell us we are in dire need of a larger context, leading to a deeper perspective, from which we might safely and truthfully regard the merits of the contending arguments.

To sound an old theme here: The scientific method can only take us so far WRT the "larger context."

I've so much enjoyed your recent posts, snarks. You do great work. (IMHO FWIW)

[snarks_when_bored]

bb, when I wrote to hosepipe that "a story may be coherent without being true", I intentionally omitted the converse ("a story may be true without being coherent"). Why? Because religious stories are for the most part quite coherent (hence their wide appeal). The problem with religious stories is not their coherence but rather their truth.

In the search for what's going on around us, I prefer the bottom up method, beginning from what we can experience (and experiment with) and moving outwards from there as best we can at a measured pace. Many people aren't satisfied with such a procedure; it doesn't give them the answers to the 'big' questions that they crave to have answered. For my part, I'd prefer to say "I don't know" rather than to try to manufacture belief in an answer for which there's little or no evidence.

With regard to your closing comment, you're much too kind (blush). Take care...